U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRlCrETUR] 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN NO. 152. 

A. C. TRUE. Director. 


DIETARY ST I DIES WITH 








T \TI\< 





BY 


EDWARD MALLINCKUODT, .lit. 



WASHINGTON: 

UOVKRNMKNT PRINTIN' i OFFICE. 

1 9 0 . 5 . 











(lass TIXa . 

Rook J Yj 'h r' . _ 














V 

V 


¥S~ 


744 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN NO. 152. 

A. C. TRUE, Director. 


«( 

w 


2-0 




WITH HARVARD 
STUDENTS. 


BY 


nr » 


EDWARD MALLINCKRODT, JR. 

% % 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 


I 9 0 5. 


















LIOTER OF TRANSMITTAL 


U. 8. Department OK AGRICULTURE, 

Office of Experiment Station*, 
Washingttm, D. C., January *0, 1905. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report of dietary studies with Harvanl 
students carried on hy Edward Mallinckrodt, jr. The desirability of such an inves¬ 
tigation was suggested by Prof. F. G. Peabody, I). D., of Harvard l ni\ersity, and 
the work was carried out under the general direction of Prof. C. R. Sanger, a thesis 
based on the results being presented to the l niversity by Mr. Mallinckrodt for the 
master’s degree. The dietary studies were conducted in accordance with the methods 
devised in connection with the nutrition investigations carried on under the auspices 
of this Office, of which Prof. W. O. Atwater is in charge, and throughout the inves¬ 
tigation Mr. Mallinckrodt was in consultation with Professor Atwater. Acknowl¬ 
edgment should l>e made to Dr. E. A. Darling and Dr. D. A. Sargent, of Harvard 
University, for cooperation in determining the physical condition and strength of 
the subjects. The results obtained are of especial value in their l>earing upon dietary 
standards, particularly those of students and others of sedentary occupation, and 
are interesting in other ways. The report is therefore respectfully submitted with 
the recommendation that it Ik* published as Bulletin No. 152 of this Office. 

Respectfully, 

A. C. True, Director. 

Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 


• • 


C 0 N T H N T S. 


I’RKe. 

Introduction. 3 

General plan. 3 

The system at Randall Hall. 4 

Details of the dietaries. 13 

Dietary study No. 401. 13 

Dietary study No. 402 . 17 

Dietary study No. 403 . 21 

Dietary study No. 404 . 25 

Dietary study No. 405 ... 20 

Dietary study No. 406 . 32 

Dietary study No. 407 . 35 

Pietarv study No. 408 . 39 

Dietary study No. 409 . 42 

Dietary study No. 410... 46 

Discussion of results. 50 

Method of computing the dietaries. 50 

Randall Hall dietaries compared with those of other students. 53 

Food supply in relation to body weight. 56 

The strength tests. 57 

General physical condition of the subjects. 59 

Mental work of the subjects. GO 

Conclusions. 61 


( 2 ) 




























DIETARY STUDIES OE HARVARD STUDENTS, 


INTRODUCTION. 

In connection with regular university work a study was made of 
dietary conditions at Randall Hall, which is the smaller of the two 
large college commons of Harvard University and furnishes board for 
1,000 students. The institution is self-supporting and managed by the 
student boarders with the cooperation of the college authorities, and is 
designed to aid students of limited means, the object being to furnish 
board on the European or a la carte plan at the lowest possible figure. 

The results of the study above mentioned, although rendered some¬ 
what doubtful by certain necessary assumptions, seemed to establish 
a strong probability that some of the students boarding at Randall 
Hall were living and working creditably upon a daily ration consid¬ 
erably below the accepted standards for men of sedentary habits. It 
was thought that further and more accurate dietary investigation, with 
observations upon the physical and mental life of these men, might 
bring to light some interesting and perhaps useful facts. Accordingly 
the investigations reported in the following pages were undertaken. 

The students examined were all in moderate circumstances; many 
of them paid their way through college by outside work and some had 
to practice the strictest economy. It would have been desirable for 
purposes of comparison to include several men to whom economy in 
the matter of diet was no object; but the small compensation that it 
was possible to hold out to them was not sufficient to induce such men 
to serve as subjects. All those who agreed to serve were earnest and 
interested in the work, and it is largely due to their patient coopera¬ 
tion that the carrying out of the investigation was made possible. 

GENERAL PLAN. 

Ten students (designated for convenience A, B, C, etc.) who lived at 
Randall Hall, and whose board bills ranged from medium to very low 
sums, were chosen as subjects. These men were put under examina¬ 
tion simultaneously three times during the college year for periods of 
three weeks each. The first period began with breakfast on Novem¬ 
ber 30, 1900; the second period February 14, 1901, and the third or 
last period May 8, 1901. During each period of study such daily 

( 3 ) 



4 


reword* were kept a* were necessary for computing the dietaries and 
each sui>ject was required to present himself at the l>cginning and end 
of each |x*riod of observation to Dr. K. A. Darling, instructor in 
hygiene in Harvard University, for medical examination and to 
Dr. D. A. Sargent, director of the Hemenway Gymnasium at Harvard 
University, for strength tests. At the end of the academic year the 
grades attained by the men in their respective studies were obtained 
from the college office. 

From such data the diet may be computed and the relative bodily 
strength, general health, and scholarship of the subjects may be esti 
mated with tolerable accuracy. Briefly, then, an effort was made to 
measure four variables—diet, physical strength, general health, and 
mental performance. Obviously but one of these variables—the diet— 
is capable of measurement in physical units; the other measurements 
being necessarily in the nature of estimates, which are, however, 
approximately comparable for the different subjects. 

THE SYSTEM AT RANDALL HALL. 

Unlike most college commons, Randall Hall has no fixed rate for 
board. The cost to each student depends solely upon what he orders. 
Sugar, salt, and water are the only things which are served free. The 
building and equipment, designed especially for their present purjxxse, 
are comparatively new. During the college year covered by this 
investigation about 1,000 students were members of the Randall Hall 
Dining Association, which means that they had the privilege of boarding 
at Randall Hall. 

Dividing the average money expenditure for one week by the number 
of boarders gives £2.24 as the average weekly price of board for the 
whole institution, on the assumption that all members were regular 
boarders taking three meals a day throughout the college year of thirty- 
five weeks. This figure is probably too low, because the assumption 
that all membersof the association were regular boarders is not strictly 
true. The average price per week paid by the men examined in the 
study for the three periods was £2.66. Since the subjects were chosen 
from men whose board bills ranged from very low to medium amounts, 
it seems reasonable to conclude that the real average price paid for 
board at Randall Hall for the year was somewhat above £2.66 per 
week. 

It is worth noting that the students themselves serve as waiters. In 
this way many of them earn the price of their board by waiting on t he 
table several hours each day. 

For each meal each table is provided with the bill of fare for the day, 
showing the dishes ready to serve and the prices. In addition to these 
the bill of fare gives the menu of so-called “combination meals.” 
These meals served at uniform prices (breakfast and lunch 14 cents 


5 


each and dinner 16 cents) furnish hoard on the “American plan" to 
those preferring it to the a la carte system. These combination 
meals supplied a varied diet, and from the data regarding them 
obtained as part of the study here reported it was calculated that a 
pe rson living on them would obtain nearly the quantities of protein 
and energy called for by the commonly accepted standard for men 
having a small amount of muscular work. 

In addition to the regular daily bills of fare each table is provided 
with an “extra-order list" giving a great variety of dishes that can he 
cooked to order. Comparatively few such dishes were used by the 
men studied. 

The order slips made out and signed by the men are kept and serve 
as a basis for calculating the weekly hoard hills. 

To obtain a list of the dishes eaten during the dietary studies each 
subject was required to write his order in a small notebook supplied 
for the purpose. A slip of carbon paper copied through the notebook 
leaf upon a regular “order slip" placed beneath, and this slip went to 
the serving room in the usual way. As a check the slips sent in by 
each subject were compared with his notebook at tin' end of each week. 
Before any student was accepted as a subject for this study he was 
given to understand that he was to eat no food outside of Randall Hall 
during the periods of examination. Unless this condition was abso¬ 
lutely agreed to the applicant was rejected. Beyond this there is no 
positive evidence that no food was eaten except that recorded in the 
notebooks, hut there is on the other hand good reason to believe that 
the rule was strictly adhered to, since the men were of good character 
and showed interest in the work. Stress was laid upon the fact that 
there was no wish whatever to interfere with the tastes and dietary 
habits of the men and that all that was desired was simply a record of 
what they ate. They were asked to eat during the periods covered by 
the study just what they would at other times when no records were 
kept. Under these conditions the dietaries for the three periods of 
three weeks each at different times of the year are believed to represent 

the average diet of these men for the entire college year with tolerable 

$ 

accuracy. 

It was impracticable to weigh all the “ portions" or “orders" eaten 
by each student during three weeks, so the average weights of the vari¬ 
ous dishes were obtained by weighing, during each period of study or 
immediately after, a number of similar portions served on different days 
and averaging the figures so obtained. The number of portions 
weighed depended upon the importance of each article of food as a 
constituent of the diet studied and ranged from one to twelve for each 
article during each period of study. At the time of weighing sam¬ 
ples of a considerable number of dishes were preserved for subsequent 
analysis by the addition of a few drops of formalin. The very great 


variety and mixed character of the food, however, necessitated fre¬ 
quent estimations of composition, for it was impossible to sample and 
analyze every dish, but such estimates were confined to unimportant 
foods that is, to those not often used and to such as supplied little 
nutritive material. 

The following table shows the cost, average weight, and amounts of 
protein and energy in one “portion'' or “order'' of the various dishes 
used. The table also shows which of the foods were analyzed and 
which had their nutritive value computed from average figures. The 
data recorded served as a basis for computing the individual dietaries. 


Table 1 . —Percentage of protein, amount of energy j>er gram, and average weight, rod, 
amount of protein, and energy per order of different kind# of food. 


Reference number. 


i 

• 

£ 

c 

be 

i* 

8. 

£ 

1 

c 

w 

Period in which 
used. 

Number of orders 
weighed. 

Average per order. 

Kinil of food. 

Proportion of j 
tein. 

Weight. 

Coat. 

Pro¬ 

tein. 

Kn- 

*Tgy. 


Reef: 

Per cl. 

au. 

No. 


Grams. 

tents. 

Grams. 

Cal. 

1 

Moiled <•. 

28.0 

2. C3 



136 

10 

38 

355 

2 

Braised <•. 

28.0 

2. 03 



327 

10 

92 

860 











3 

Corned 5. 

26.8 

3.26 

2 

2 

105 

8 

28 

342 

4 

Do. *. 

26.3 

3.26 

3 

2 

108 

8 

28 

862 

5 

Average. 

26. 3 

3. 20 

.... 

4 

106 

8 

28 

346 

6 

Roast <•. 

24.1 

3.16 

1 

5 

82 

10 

20 

259 

7 

Do. ft. 

24.1 

3. 10 

2 

2 

92 

10 

22 

291 

8 

I)o. ft. 

24.1 

3.16 

3 

7 

86 

10 

21 

272 

9 

Stew a. 

23.7 

2.10 

1 

2 

327 

10 

78 

687 

10 

Steak <*. 

30.9 

2.97 

1 

3 

98 

10 

:#) 

291 

11 

Do. ft. 

80.9 

2.97 

2 

5 

115 

10 

36 

342 

12 

Do. ft. 

30.9 

2.97 

3 

5 

109 

10 

34 

324 

13 

HnmLurK: steak ft. 

28.0 

2.63 

2 

1 

133 

10 

37 

350 

14 

Rump steak ft. 

23. 5 

3.27 

2 

1 

175 

20 

41 

572 

15 

Tenderloin ft. 

23.5 

3.27 

2 

1 

208 

50 

49 

680 

1C 

Tongue**. 

12.8 

2.67 



108 

10 

14 

288 

17 

Tripe <*. 

11.7 

.78 



126 

10 

15 


18 

Croquettes ft. 

28.0 

2.63 

1 

1 

279 

10 

78 

; 

19 

IH>. ft. 

28.0 

2.63 

2 

1 

234 

10 

66 

615 

20 

Hash ft. 

12.0 

1.78 

1 

2 

171 

7 

21 

304 

21 

Do. ft. 

12.0 

1.78 

2 

2 

170 

7 

20 

303 

22 

Do. ft. 

12.0 

1.73 

3 

2 

265 

6 

32 

472 

23 

Frizzled beef with eggs ft. 

10.7 

1.54 

1 

1 

177 

10 

19 

•273 

23m 

Do.**. 

10.7 

1.54 

2 

1 

151 

10 

17 

*237 

24 

Do. ft. 

10.7 

1.54 

3 

1 

112 

9 

12 

172 

24a 

Average. 

10.7 

1.54 

•••* 

3 

148 

10 

16 

227 

25 

Potpie**. 

17.3 

3.13 

1 

2 

265 

10 

46 

829 

26 

Do. ft. 

17.3 

3.13 

2 

2 

•220 

10 

38 

689 


Veal: 









27 

Cutlets ft. 

31.0 

2.39 

2 

1 

136 

15 

42 

325 

28 

Roast,ft with gravy and dressing** (see 










reference No. 29). 

31.0 

2.39 

2 

1 

127 

10 

39 

304 

29 

Gravy and dressing with roast ft (see 










No. 28). 

1.9 

.78 

2 

1 

86 

ro 

2 

67 

30 

Venison i>otpie<*. 

17.3 

3.13 



265 

10 

46 

829 


Mutton and lamb: 





31 

Chops ft. 

21.7 

4.07 

2 

1 

73 

25 

16 

297 

32 

Roast ft . 

19.7 

2.82 

1 

1 

75 

10 

15 

174 

33 

I)o. ft. 

19.7 

2.32 

2 

2 

124 

10 

24 

288 

34 

Do. ft. 

19.7 

2 . 32 

3 

1 

120 

10 

24 

278 

85 

Roast, eold ft. 

19.7 

2. 32 

2 

1 

106 

10 

21 

246 

96 

Tongueft. 

12.8 

2.67 

2 

1 

108 

10 

14 

288 

37 

Croquettes <•. 

21.7 

4.07 

1 


257 

10 

56 

1,046 

38 

Mineed *• (with toast *’) (see No. 140) .. 

19.7 

2. 32 

• • • • 

. .. • 

135 

8 

27 

313 

































































































Table 1 . — Percentage of protein , amount of energy per gram , and average weight , cost, 
amount of protein , and energy per order of different kinds of food —Continued. 


Reference number. 

Kind of food. 

Proportion of pro¬ 
tein. 

Energy per gram. 

-C 

o 

X 

M 

Q> 

Average per order. 

Period in wh 

used. 

Number of ore 
weighed. 

Weight. 

Cost. 

Pro¬ 

tein. 

En¬ 

ergy. 


Pork: 

Per ct. 

Cal. 

No. 


Grams. 

Cents. 

Crams. 

Cal. 

39 

Bacon b with eggs*’ (see No. 78). 

22.7 

7.31 

1 

1 

31 

4 

7 

227 

40 

Do. b . 

22.7 

7.31 

2 

1 

43 

4 

10 

314 

41 

Do. b . 

22.7 

7.31 

3 

1 

26 

4 

6 

190 

42 

Chops c . 

21.1 




190 

10 

40 

1,258 

43 

Cutfetsb with fried apples** (see No. 






242). 

21.1 

6.62 

2 

1 

194 

15 

41 

1,284 

44 

Ham, cakes c . 

22.2 

4.41 



195 

10 

43 

ttfiH 

45 

Ham, fried b . 

22.2 

4.41 

2 

2 

80 

10 

18 

353 

46 

Do. b . 

22.2 

4.41 

3 

1 

68 

10 

15 

300 

47 

Ham hashed with eggs b . 

22.5 

3.27 

3 

1 

195 

10 

44 

638 

48 

Ham fried** (with eggs «’) (see No. 78).. 

22.2 

4.41 



80 

12 

18 

353 

49 

Ham boiled c (with eggsv) (see No.78). 

20.2 

3.28 

i 

• • • • 

76 

10 

15 

249 

50 

Sausage b . 

19.8 

6.27 

2 

2 

116 

8 

23 

727 


Poultry: 









51 

Chicken pie b . 

21.8 

2.43 

1 

1 

233 

12 

51 

566 

52 

Chicken wings b with toast** (see No. 










139). 

17.6 

2. I'' 

2 

1 

94 

10 

17 

205 

63 

Chicken wings b with toast**. 

17.6 

2.18 

3 

1 

85 

10 

15 

185 

54 

Turkey, roast, with dressing «. 

20.2 

1.86 

1 

1 

246 

15 

49 

456 

55 

Do. b . 

20.2 

1.86 

2 

2 

287 

16 

58 

534 

56 

Do. b ... 

20.2 

1.86 

3 

2 

298 

15 

60 

554 


Soups: 









67 

Chowder «. 

2.5 

.53 

2 

4 

246 

3 

6 

130 

68 

Puree of peas <«. 

4.0 

.95 

2 

3 

189 

3 

8 

180 

59 

Soups a . 

2.8 

.44 

1 

8 

193 

3 

5 

85 

60 

Do.«. 

1.8 

.26 

2 

8 

213 

3 

4 

55 

61 

Do. d . 

2.9 

. 45 

3 


203 

3 

6 

91 


Fish: 









62 

Bass and cod, fried c . 

25.9 

1.89 



140 

<10 

36 

265 

63 

Halibut, fried b . 

32.6 

1.08 

2 

2 

140 

10 

46 

571 

64 

Mackerel, broiled b . 

21.8 

1.80 

3 

4 

145 

10 

32 

261 

65 

Smelts, fried b . 

25.9 

1.89 

1 

1 

121 

10 

31 

229 

66 

Sea trout, fried trout, baked white- 










fish b . 

26.9 

1.89 

3 

1 

n 122 

10 

32 

231 

67 

Lobsters, boiled b . 

18.1 

1.15 

2 

1 

98 

25 

18 

113 

68 

Oysters, raw, 1 dozen c . 

6.0 

.59 



200 

15 

12 

118 

69 

Oysters, fried c . 

6.0 

.59 

.... 


114 

25 

7 

67 

70 

Oyster stew, ordinary <•. 

4.1 

.54 

1 

1 

197 

10 

8 

106 

71 

Do. b . 

4.1 

.54 

2 

1 

257 

10 

11 

139 

72 

Oyster stew, special«. 

3.8 

.57 

2 

2 

420 

15 

16 

239 

73 

Oyster pie c . 

17.3 

3.13 



220 

12 

38 

089 

74 

Scallops, fried b . 

25. 4 

1.54 

1 

1 

106 

10 

27 

163 

75 

Shrimp salad with dressing b . 

26. 1 

1.54 

3 

1 

183 

15 

46 

282 

76 

Fish balls b . 

12.9 

2. 11 

1 

2 

158 

5 

20 

333 

76a 

Do. b . 

12.9 

2.11 

2 

1 

149 

5 

19 

314 


Eggs, hens’: 









77 

2 raw, boiled, and dropped c . 

13.1 

1.64 



101 

e8 

13 

166 

78 

2 fried ,b l . 

13.0 

2. 45 

1 

1 

94 

8 

12 

230 

79 

Do. c . 

13.0 

2.45 

2 

• > • • 

87 

8 

11 

213 

80 

Do. <*. 

13.0 

2.45 

3 

3 

85 

6 

11 

208 

81 

Omelet b . 

12. 3 

2.42 

1 

1 

158 

10 

19 

382 

82 

Do. b . . 

12.3 

2.42 

2 

3 

188 

10 

23 

455 

83 

Do.«. 

12.3 

2.42 

3 

6 

158 

8 

19 

382 

84 

Scrambled b . 

24.1 

5.20 

1 

1 

168 

10 

40 

874 

85 

Do. b . 

24.1 

5.20 

2 

3 

147 

10 

35 

764 

86 

Do. <*. 

24.1 

5.20 

3 

6 

176 

8 

42 

915 


Dairy products: 









87 

Rntt.prb . 

1.0 

7.92 

1 

11 

12 

1 


95 

88 

Do. b . 

1.0 

7.92 

2 

3 

12 

1 

. 

95 

89 

Do. b . 

1.0 

7.92 

3 

7 

13 

1 


103 

90 

Cheese b . 

25. 9 

4.68 

2 

1 

20 

1 

5 

94 

yl 

Cheese, sage b . 

25.9 

4.68 

1 

1 

17 

1 

4 

80 

92 

Cream b . 

2.5 

2.03 

3 

3 

65 

2 

9 

mt 

132 

93 

Cream b with strawberries (see No. 










256). 

2.5 

2.03 

3 

7 

45 

r0 

1 

91 

94 

Milk, bowl b . 

3.5 

.76 

3 

3 

346 

J 4 

12 

263 

95 

Milk, glass «. 

3.5 

.76 

1 

12 

188 

2 

7 

143 

96 

Milk, pitcher ft. 

3.5 

.76 

1 

9 

101 

1 

4 

77 


Breakfast cereals, etc.: 









97 1 

Prepared cereal b . 

11.7 

4.15 

1 

3 

68 

4 

8 

282 

98 

'bo. b . 

11.7 

4.15 

2 

4 

56 

4 

7 

232 

99 1 

Do. b . 

11.7 

4. 16 

3 

3 

68 

4 

8 

282 
















































































































8 


Tabu X.—I'ererntaye of protein , amount of energy per gram, and average "right, n>*t% 
amount of protein , ami energy /n r order of different k ind* of fnnl —Continued. 


Reference number. 

Kind of food. 

5. 

c 

is 

E 

l 

• 

| 

£ 

i 

£ 

V 

X 

XI 

£ 

V 

Average per order. 


a 

* 

c| 

1 

£ 

Number of on! 

weighed. 

Weight. 

Co«t. 

Pro¬ 

tein. 

En¬ 

ergy. 


Breakfast cereals, etc.—4'ontinued. 

Ptrrt. 

tut. 

Xo. 


Uram*. 

rent*. 

dram*. 

(’at. 

luu 

Hominy, boiled »•. 

1.8 

0.85 

1 

4 

203 

4 

4 

173 

lol 

Do. ft. 

1.8 

.85 

2 

4 

199 

3 

4 

169 

102 

Do. 6. 

1.8 

.85 

3 

5 

191 

3 

3 

162 

loa 

Oatmeal, ladled a. 

3.7 

1.03 

1 

5 

206 

4 

M 

212 

104 

Iln u . 

2.3 

.65 

2 

4 

220 

3 

5 

! 1 » 

106 

I)o. 6.... 

8.0 

.84 

3 

4 

226 

3 

7 

190 

106 

Rice, boiled «. 

2.5 

1.17 

1 

3 

148 

4 

4 

173 

107 

Do. 6. 

2.5 

1.17 

2 

3 

129 

3 

3 

151 

10* 

Do. ft. 

2.5 

1.17 

3 

5 

142 

3 

4 

166 

109 

Shredded wheat biscuit*,2<*. 

10.5 

4.01 



.si 

4 

6 

225 

no 

Wheat, boiled". 

2.0 

.73 

2 

5 

229 

3 

5 

167 

ill 

Do. 6 . 

2.0 

.73 

3 

2 

233 

3 

5 

170 

112 

Average. 

2.0 

.73 

•••• 

7 

231 

*3 

5 

169 


Bread, crackers, etc.: 









ttt 

Bread, white 6 . 

9.2 

2.88 

1 

9 

64 

1 

6 

184 

114 

Do. 6 . 

9.2 

2.88 

2 

10 

61 

1 

6 

184 

115 

Do. 6 . 

9.2 

2.88 

3 

10 

68 

1 

6 

196 

116 

Bread, Graham 6 . 

8.9 

2.87 

1 

8 

68 

1 

6 

195 

117 

Do. 6 . 

8.9 

2.87 

2 

10 

70 

1 

6 

201 

118 

Do. 6 . 

8.9 

2.87 

3 

11 

66 

1 

6 

IN 

119 

Bread, com*. 

7.9 

2.84 

1 

6 

43 

1 

3 

122 

120 

Do. 6 . 

7.9 

2.84 

2 

10 

50 

1 

4 

142 

121 

Do. 6 . 

7.9 

2.84 

3 

10 

44 

1 

3 

125 

122 

Bread, Boston brown ft. 

5.4 

2.46 

1 

1 

191 

2 

10 

470 

m 

Do. 6 . 

5.4 

2. 46 

2 

2 

181 

2 

10 

445 

124 

Do. 6 . 

5.4 

2.16 

3 

1 

141 

2 

8 

347 

125 

Biscuit, soda 6 . 

9.3 

4.02 

1 

4 

58 

1 

5 

233 

126 

Do. ft. 

9.3 

4.02 

2 

4 

49 

1 

5 

197 

127 

Do. 6. 

9.3 

4.02 

3 

6 

61 

1 

5 

205 

12* 

Gems, Graham 6. 

8.9 

2.87 

2 

8 

37 

1 

3 

106 

129 

Do. 6. 

8.9 

2.87 

3 

6 

38 

1 

3 

109 

130 

Average. 

8.9 

2.87 

.... 

14 

38 

l 

3 

109 

131 

Rolls f>. 

9.0 

3.08 

1 

15 

49 

1 

4 

151 

132 

Do. ft. 

9.0 

3.08 

2 

18 

48 

1 

4 

148 

133 

Do. ft. 

9.0 

3.08 

3 

17 

55 

1 

5 

169 

134 

Toast, dry <*. 

11.5 

3. 39 



55 

2 

6 

186 

135 

Toast, buttered «. 

9.0 

4.11 

2 

5 

74 

3 

7 

304 

136 

Do. ft. 

9.0 

4.11 

3 

5 

66 

3 

6 

271 

137 

Average. 

9.0 

4.11 

.... 

10 

70 

3 

6 

288 

13jH 

Toast, creamed <* . 

9.2 

2.88 



70 

m 7 

6 

202 

139 

Toast ft, with chicken wings (see No. 52) 

11.5 

3. 39 

2 

1 

46 

r 0 

5 

156 

140 

Toast e, with eggs and with minced 










lamb (see Nos. 77 and 38). 

11.5 

3.39 



27 

2 

3 

91 

141 

Toast ft, with asparagus (see No. 218) ... 

11.5 

3.39 

3 

2 

25 

r0 

3 

85 

142 

Scones ft. 

9.3 

4.02 

2 

3 

40 

1 

4 

161 

143 

Buckwheat cakes ft. 

7.1 

2.09 

1 

1 

135 

5 

10 

282 

144 

IK), ft. 

7.1 

2.09 

2 

1 

156 

5 

11 

326 

145 

Griddlecakesft . 

7.1 

2.09 

2 

3 

161 

5 

11 

336 

146 

Do.". 

7.1 

2.09 

3 

5 

192 

4 

14 

401 

147 

Average. 

7.1 

2.09 

.... 

8 

177 

5 

13 

370 

146 

Crackers, Graham ft. 

10.0 

4.55 

1 

1 

62 

3 

5 

237 

149 

Do. ft. 

10.0 

4.55 

2 

1 

55 

3 

6 

250 

130 

Oyster crackers ft. 

11.3 

4.59 

1 

1 

46 

2 

5 

211 

131 

Do. ft. 

11.3 

4.59 

2 

3 

51 

o 

• 

234 

152 

Crackers for soup ft . 

11.3 

4.59 

1 

7 

46 

1 

6 

211 

15S 

Do. ft. 

11.3 

4.59 

2 

4 

44 

1 

5 

203 

154 

Average. 

11.3 

4.59 

.... 

11 

45 

1 

6 

207 

156 

Macaroni". 

3.9 

1.16 

1 

3 

199 

7 

8 

231 

156 

Do. ft . 

3.9 

1. 16 

3 

3 

226 

6 

9 

262 

157 

Average . 

3.9 

1.16 

.... 

6 

213 

7 

8 

247 





























































































































































































i& 

15' 

m 

16 

16: 

16: 

16- 

16J 

16( 

16’ 

W 

16! 

17( 

171 

17! 

17! 

17' 

171 

171 

17! 

17* 

17! 

18( 

181 

185 

183 

184 

185 

18(i 

187 

m 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

19V 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

207t 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

• 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 


9 


ILK 1. 


■Percentage of jnrotein, amount of energy per gram , and average weight, com, 
amount of protein , and energy per order of different hinds of food— Continued. 


Kind of food. 


Desserts, ete.: 

Cake,*> average of several kinds h.... 

Do. 5. 

Do. 5. 

Cookies b. 

Do. b .. 

Do.**. 

Doughnuts b . 

Do. b . 

Do. b . 

Eclairs b. 

Gingerbread b. 

Do.b. . 

Do. b. 

Fritters, apple <•. 

IMes. b average of several kinds A. 

Do. b. 

Do.b. 

Puddings, a average of several kinds A 

Do! b. ririrriimiiriiiriiirniiiii 

Pudding, Indianb.!. !!!!. 

Strawberry shortcakeb, berriesu (see 
No. 180). 

Strawberry shortcake,b crust (see No. 
179). 

Tarts, damson, raspberries, etc.b. 

Ice cream b. 

Do.b. 

Do.b.; 

Jelly, coffee <*. 

Do.b. 

Do.b.; 

Sherbet c . 

Vegetables: 

Beans, baked a. 

Do.b. 

Do.b. 

Beans, Lima b. 

Do.a. 

Do.b. 

Beans, waxb. 


Peasb_ 

Do.b 


Average 


Potatoes, baked b. 

Do.b. 

Do.b. 

Potatoes, boiled b. 

Potatoes, mashedb. 

Do.b. 

Do.b. 

Potatoes, stewed c. 

Potatoes, friedd. 

Do.a. 

Do.b. 

Potatoes, French friedb. 

Potatoes, German fried, and griddled c. 


Potatoes, lvonnaiseb 
Do.b..*.. 


Average 


Potatoes, hashed, brown b. 

Potato saladb. 

Sweet potatoes, boiled and baked b_ 

Do. b . 

Asparagus, b with toast u (see No. 141).. 

Beets, pickled b. 

Cabbageb. 

Do. b. 


Proportion of pro¬ 

tein. 

Energy per gram. 

Period in which 
used. 

Number of orders 

weighed. 

Average per order 


Weight. 

Cost. 

Pro¬ 

tein. 

Kn- 

ergy. 

Per ct. 

Cal. 

No 


Grams. 

Cents. 

Gra ms. 

('at. 

6.3 

3.89 

1 

5 

47 

1 

3 

183 

. 6.3 

3. 89 

2 

9 

44 

1 

3 

171 

6.3 

3.89 

3 

3 

50 

1 

3 

194 

. 7.0 

4.35 

1 

2 

32 

1 

2 

139 

7.0 

4.35 

2 

6 

33 

1 

2 

144 

. 7.0 

4.35 

3 

2 

38 

1 

3 

165 

6.7 

4.61 

1 

3 

47 

1 

3 

217 

6.7 

4.61 

2 

2 

38 

1 

3 

175 

6.7 

4.61 

3 

1 

49 

1 

3 

226 

4.1 

1.87 

2 

2 

146 

4 

6 

273 

. 5.8 

3.84 

1 

6 

43 

1 

2 

165 

5.8 

3.84 

2 

6 

46 

1 

3 

177 

5.8 

3.84 

3 

3 

49 

1 

3 

188 

3.1 

2.86 

2 

5 

158 

7 

5 

452 

4.1 

2.94 

1 

2 

172 

5 

7 

506 

4.1 

2.94 

2 

5 

158 

5 

6 

465 

4.1 

2.94 

3 

8 

150 

4 

6 

441 

4.1 

1.87 

1 

13 

183 

5 

8 

342 

4.1 

1.67 

2 

11 

187 

4 

8 

294 

4.1 

1.72 

3 

1 

172 

4 

n 

7 

296 

5. o 

1.90 

3 

1 

1.50 

4 

8 

285 

1.0 

.40 

3 

2 

82 

7 

1 

33 

6.3 

3.89 

3 

2 

126 

r0 

8 

490 

4.1 

2.94 

2 

3 

78 

2 

3 

229 

2.7 

2.09 

1 

1 

120 

7 

3 

261 

2.7 

2.09 

•2 

2 

138 

7 

4 

288 

2.7 

2.09 

3 

4 

114 

7 

3 

238 

2.8 

1.01 

1 

3 

127 

4 

4 

128 

2.8 

1.01 

2 

5 

115 

4 

3 

116 

2.8 

1.01 

3 

4 

119 

4 

3 

120 


1.28 

1 


76 

6 


97 

8.2 

1.53 

1 

. 1 
«•> 

209 

4 

17 

320 

8.2 

1.53 

2 

4 

226 

4 

19 

346 

8.2 

1.53 

3 

4 

198 

4 

16 

303 

7.2 

1.15 

1 

2 

88 

3 

6 

101 

7.2 

1.15 

2 

2 

95 

3 

7 

109 

7.2 

1.15 

3 

2 

90 

2 

6 

101 

1.0 

.20 

3 

2 

64 

2 

1 

13 

3.6 

.64 

2 

3 

81 

3 

3 

62 

3.6 

. 64 

3 

3 

85 

2 

3 

54 

3.6 

.64 


6 

83 

3 

3 

.53 

2.6 

1.05 

1 

4 

141 

2 

4 

148 

2.6 

1.05 

2 

12 

149 

2 

4 

156 

2.6 

1.05 

3 

7 

129 

2 

3 

135 

2.5 

1.01 

3 

4 

143 

2 

4 

144 

2.6 

1.16 

1 

5 

136 

2 

4 

158 

2.6 

1. 16 

2 

6 

141 

2 

4 

164 

2.6 

1. 16 

3 

6 

143 

2 

4 

166 

2.5 

1.01 



143 

2 

4 

144 

3.4 


1 


125 

2 

4 

319 

3.4 

1.94 

2 

5 

119 

2 

4 

231 

3.4 

2.25 

3 

3 

130 

2 

4 

292 

3.4 


3 

3 

85 

5 

3 

191 

3.4 

2.25 



130 

ft 

4 

292 

3.4 

2. 25 

1 

2 

88 

« 2 

3 

198 

3.4 

2.25 

3 

4 

112 

2 

4 

252 

3.4 

2.25 

• * - 

6 

100 

2 

3 

226 

3.4 

2.26 

3 

1 1 

179 

2 

6 

403 

2.5 

1.01 

2 

1 

117 

5 

3 

118 

3.0 

2.11 

i 

3 

185 

2 

6 

390 

3.0 

2.11 

2 

6 

183 

2 

5 

386 

1.5 

.20 

3 

2 

60 

8 

1 

12 

2.8 

.44 

3 

1 

83 

3 

2 

37 

1.6 

.34 

2 

1 

108 

3 

2 

37 

1.6 

.34 

3 

1 

147 

2 

2 

50 


13037—No. 152-05- 







































































































































10 


Tahi.k 1 . — Percmiag* of jmtiein, amount of mtrrpj j>rr [from, and avtratje wight, rout, 
amount of jtrotrin, and energy /xt ordrr of atjferent kind* of ft»nl —Continue*!. 


Reference number. 


I*roportion of pro¬ 

tein. 

i 

& 

c 

W 

• 

-1 

'z* 

a 

a 

— 

z 

Average per onier 


Kind of food. 

Weight. 

Goat 

Pro¬ 

tein. 

En¬ 

ergy. 


Vegetable*—Continued. 

Prrct. 

(\U. 

No. 


dram*. 

Omit. 

Uramt. 

CaL 

222 

Celery e . 

1.1 

0.20 



75 

5 

1 

15 

223 

Com, stewed 6.. 

2,8 

1.06 

1 

1 

78 

3 

2 

82 

224 

Do. 6. 

2.8 

1.05 

2 

1 

63 

3 

2 

66 

225 

Do. 6. 

2.8 

1.05 

3 

4 

83 

2 

2 

87 

226 

Onions, raw *. 

1.6 

.52 

3 

1 

81 

3 

1 

42 

227 

Onions, 1 m liltsl 6. 

1.2 

.43 

3 

2 

91 

3 

1 

39 

228 

Radishes*. 

1.3 

.32 

3 

2 

66 

4 

1 

21 

229 

Spinach <•. 

2.1 

.60 



125 

2 

3 

75 

230 

Succotash *. 

3.6 

1.05 

1 

2 

90 

3 

3 

95 

231 

IK). *. 

3.6 

1.05 

3 

3 

91 

2 

8 

96 

232 

Tomatoes, stewed *. 

1.2 

.25 

2 

3 

107 

3 

1 

27 

233 

Do. fc. 

1.2 

.25 

3 

4 

89 

2 

1 

22 

2:u 

Average. 

1.2 

.25 

.... 

7 

98 

3 

1 

24 

236 

Turnips*. 

1.3 

.60 

3 

1 

168 

0 2 

2 

101 

236 

Hash, vegetable <•. 

g, t 

2.25 



179 

6 

6 

401 

•2:17 

Pickles, sweet e. 

1.1 

.25 



67 

5 

1 

17 

238 

Pickles*. 

LI 

.25 

2 

1 

67 

1 

1 

17 

239 

IK).*. 

1.1 

.25 

3 

2 

58 

1 

1 

15 


Fruits: 









210 

Apples*. 

.3 

.48 

2 

6 

127 

2 

.4 

61 

241 

Apples, baked <•. 

.6 

.77 



157 

4 

1 

121 

212 

Apples,* fried, with pork cutlets (see 










No. 48). 

.2 

1.57 

2 

1 

63 

r0 


1*9 











243 

Banana-*. 

.8 

.65 

2 

6 

155 

2 

1 

101 

244 

Do. *. 

.8 

.65 

3 

6 

140 

2 

1 

91 

245 

Average. 

.8 

.65 

.... 

12 

148 

2 


96 

246 

Cherries, canned *. 

1.1 

.91 

2 

1 

85 

4 

1 

77 

247 

Grapes 5. 

1.0 

.74 

1 

1 

105 

3 

1 

78 

24* 

Do. *. 

1.0 

.71 

2 

1 

185 

5 

2 

137 

249 

Figs, dried*. 

4.3 

3.22 

2 

1 

87 

4 

4 

280 

250 

Oranges*. 

. 6 

.38 

2 

6 

228 

3 

1.4 

87 

251 

IK). *. 

.6 

.38 

3 

6 

234 

3 

1.4 

89 

252 

Average. 

.6 

.38 

.... 

12 

231 

3 

1.4 

88 

253 

Peaches, canned *. 

.7 

. 48 

2 

1 

69 

4 


33 

254 

Prunes, stewed *. 

.6 

1.16 

1 

2 

112 

4 

1 

130 

255 

Do. b . 

.6 

1.16 

3 

2 

94 

4 

1 

109 

256 

St ra wberries* with cream •• (see No. 98). 

1.0 

.40 

3 

7 

135 

° 7 

1 

54 

257 

Preserves.n average of several kinds*. 

.5 

2. 45 

2 

4 

66 

4 


162 

258 

Sauces, * average of several kinds* ... 

m 

• t 

.81 

3 

3 

98 

4 

1 

79 


Sugars, etc.: 









259 

Sugar, teaspoon fuls <•. 





9 

r0 


36 

260 

Sirup <•. 


2.77 



75 

2 


208 

261 

Honev <*.. 


3.21 



75 

4 


241 


Beverages: p 







262 

Cocoa rf. 

L l 

.31 



184 

3 

2 

.57 

•263 

Coffeed and tea*#. 

.8 

. 17 



184 

3 

1 


•264 

Cereal coffee <■. 

.2 

.07 



184 

3 

13 

265 

Chocolate^. 

2.1 

.72 



184 

5 

4 

13*> 

266 

Birch t>eer,ginger ale, sarsaparilla <•... 


. 45 



225 

5 


101 

267 

Lemonade «•.’.. 


.45 



200 

2 


90 


Combination meals;» 







268 

Breakfasts. 

4.6 

1.25 

1 

• • • • 

570 

10 

26 

710 

269 

Do. 

4.2 

1.34 

2 

• • • • 

591 

10 

25 

790 

270 

Do. 

4.4 

1.34 

3 

• • • • 

545 

10 

24 

728 

271 

Lunches. 

4.9 

1.70 

1 

• • • • 

534 

10 

26 

908 

272 

Do. 

6.4 

1.99 

2 

• • • • 

499 

10 

32 

993 

273 

IK>. 

4.0 

1.68 

3 


428 

10 

17 

675 

271 

Dinner. 

6.1 

1.46 

1 

• • • • 

527 

12 

32 

769 

275 

Do. 

5.7 

1.33 

2 

• • • • 

531 

12 

30 

704 

276 

Do. 

5.2 

1.39 

3 

• • • • 

459 

12 

24 

638 


n Percentage of protein, energy per gram. «n«l average weight j>er order actually determined. 

"Percentage of protein and energy |ht gram, estimated, either from analyse* of dmilar material- 
previously published (t. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Buis, 28 and 75), or from 


































































































































































11 


determinations made in connection with these studies, on materials sampled in one period but used 
in another. Average weight per order actually found. 

r Percentage of protein, energy per gram, arid average weight per order, all estimated from corre¬ 
sponding data for similar materials. 

rf Percentage of protein and energy per gram actually determined, but average weight per order 
estimated from that of similar materials. 

The cost per order decreased 2 cents in period 3. 

/“German fried” potatoes cost 2 cents, but “griddled” cost10 cents per order, 
win peri (sis 1 and 2 the cost per order was 3 cents. 

The average weight per order of pie was ascertained from the weighings of a number of orders of 
different kinds of pie. When the subject used several kinds during the same period, this average 
weight was used in computing the amount of protein and energy obtained; but when only one kind 
was used, the weight per order of that particular kind was taken for the computation. The same is 
true of preserves, puddings, sauces, and cake. The cost per order of cake is here given as 1 cent, 
since that was the price in the majority of cases. For some kinds, however, the cost was larger: con¬ 
sequently the total cost for cake given in the tables of some of the studies is not equal to the number 
of orders times the price here given. These differences are noted in the tables beyond. 

* In the case of the combination meals, as here tabulated, the figures for percentage of protein, energy 
per gram, cost, and weight per order do not include the corresponding data for the bread and the tea, 
coffee, or milk that always formed part of such meals. Since the quantity of both the bread and the 
drink with the meal was the same as in the usual “orders” of these materials they may be recorded 
with separate orders of the same materials, and in computing the results of the studies it was found 
more convenient to record them thus. Accordingly, the price of the combination meals as actually 
served is here reduced by the price of the bread and the drink deducted. The proportion of protein 
and energy per gram of the combination meals, minus the bread and drink, were ascertained from 
the amount, protein content, and energy value of the various materials that were included. For the 
most part these data were obtained by actual determinations on samples of the materials, though in 
the case of a few of the less important materials the data were estimated. 
j Hot milk cost 5 cents per bowl. 
frThe cost per order was 4 cents in period 1. 

l Sometimes formed part of an order, with bacon or ham. See note u. 
w»The cost per order decreased 1 cent in period 3. 

«The weignt per order of sea trout was 120 grams. 

o The cost per order of strawberries varied from week to week during the same period. The total 
cost for this item in any study is that of the total number of orders at the price actually paid rather 
than at the average price here given. 

pTea and coffee that contained neither milk nor sugar were assumed to contain no nutrients, 
a A special order. 

rln the case of sugar there was no charge. In the case of other materials thus marked the cast 
was included elsewhere, as shown by the cross references. 

*The regular price of lyonnaise potatoes was 2 cents per order, but in a few cases some special 
orders that cost 5 cents each were served. 

t Fried bass cost 10 cents, fried cod 11 cents, per order. 

«and eSome orders included more than one kind of food material, each of different composition; 
for example, ham and eggs (No. 48) or veal with gravy and dressing (No. 28). To calculate the 
quantity of protein and energy in the whole order it was necessary to ascertain the weight, percent¬ 
age of protein, and energy per gram for each kind of material. In the case of such orders as veal and 
dressing, where the one was always accompanied by the other, the cost per order is given with the 
main item, and the other is marked 0, In the case of such orders as ham and eggs, where either part 
could be ordered separately, the cost of each part is given by itself. 

Where average figures are given in the table above, the average figures in the last two columns are 
obtained by multiplying Ihe average weight per order by the average percentage of protein and 
energy per'gram rather than by summing the individual items and dividing by the number of 
items. 


With the foregoing data regarding the weight, cost, and amounts of 
protein and energy for one average order of each of the various dishes 
at our disposal, and having in addition a record of the number of 
times each dish was eaten by the man in question, the calculation of 
the daily ration becomes possible. In making such calculations, how¬ 
ever, it is very essential that the information given in the footnotes 
to the table above be also taken into consideration. The tables fol¬ 
lowing the explanatory data given in the account of each dietary study 
bevond show the cost and the amounts of protein and energy in the 
average food eaten daily during the periods included. The numbers 
in parentheses after the names of the foods refer to the places where 
those articles may be found in Table 1 above. The second number 
indicates the number of orders eaten and the third shows the total cost 
of the orders. For example, in Table 3 we find the item “chowder 
(57), 2. 6 cents,” which means that the composition, cost, etc., of an 
order of chowder may he found by looking up No. 57 in Table I, that 
two orders were eaten, and that the total cost was fi cents. 


12 


In tin* tables allowing the results of tlie* studies all f<xxl materials 
are grouped under 18 general classes, viz, soups, dairy products, 
cereals, breads, desserts, vegetables, fruits, beverages, combination 
meals, sugars (ordinary sugar and sirup), meats (including hash, 
unless otherwise itemized), tish, and eggs. Combination meals appear 
without bread and beverages and represent the characteristic part of 
the meal onlv. It is the custom at Randall Hall to serve with the com- 
bination meals several kinds of bread, and tea, coffee, or milk at the 
option of the individual. Since the size of the portions of bread and 
the quantity of the beverages are the same as when ordered separately, 
these may be recorded as if separate from the combination meals and, 
both for the sake of convenience and in order that the different kinds 
of food materials might, so far as possible, l>e grouped according 
to their respective classes, this method was followed in the tables. 
The actual value of a combination meal as served is greater than would 
appear from the figures in the tables 1)}’ the nutrients contained in that 
particular selection of bread and drink which accompanied the meal; 
the cost likewise is greater by 2 cents. On the other hand, the figures 
indicating the nutrients and energy furnished by separate orders of 
breads and beverages are necessarily too high by the same amount 
that the combination meals appear too low, and the same applies to the 
cost. However, it is plain that the matter is simply one of distribu¬ 
tion, the final value of the ration being, of course, unaffected. 

The data showing the nutritive value of the diet are calculated on 

the basis of digestible protein and available energy in addition to the 

more usual basis which refers to amounts eaten. The figures for 

digestible protein and available energy were included and used in the 

discussion because it was believed that these data could be calculated 

with reasonable accuracv bv means of factors, and that the results so 

• * 

obtained offered a more satisfactory basis for comparison and discus¬ 
sion than the statistics of quantities eaten. 

The factors or coefficients employed for digestibility of protein and 
availability of energy were deduced from the results of a large num¬ 
ber of studies carried on in connection with the nutrition investigations 
of the Office of Experiment Stations and other similar work, and are 
given in 'Fable 2 below. Their accuracy, the importance of many of 
them, the relation between digestible or available nutrients and 
nutrients eaten, and related topics have been discussed in detail by 
Atwater" and by Atwater and Bryant, 6 and also referred to in earlier 
bulletins of this series/ 

The figures show how much of the protein of different foods and 
food groups is digested—that is, taken up by the body and utilized. 


"Connecticut Storrs Station Rpt. 1899, p. 89. 

Mbid., j>. 73. 

r U. 8. Dept. A*rr., Office of Experiment Station* Hill*. 128, p. 19, and 136, p. 105. 



13 


In a similar way the figures for energy show how much of the total 
energy of the food has been made available for the uses of the body in 
the processes of digestion and assimilation. 


Table 2. — Coefficient# of digestibility of protein and availability of energy of different 

classes of food materials. 


Soups 

Moats 

Fish.. 


Eggs. 

Dairy products. 

Break last cereals .. 
Bread, crackers, etc 


Desserts. 

Vegetables. 

Fruits. 

Sugars. 

Beverages. 

Combination meals 


Class of food. 


Protein. 


Energy. 


Per cent. 
97 
97 
97 
97 
97 
85 
85 
85 
83 
85 


97 


Per cent. 
80 

87 
85 
89 
93 
91 
91 
93 
91 

88 
98 
98 


92 


92 


DETAILS OF THE DIETARIES. 

In the following pages the details of the dietary studies with the ten 
students are recorded. 


DIETARY STUDY NO. 401. 

The subject of dietary study No. 401, who is designated A, was 31 
years of age a , 5 feet 1.8 inches in height, and weighed 106.7 pounds. 
In physical development and state of nutrition he was decidedly below 
the average, as was also the case with his bodily strength. He was a 
student in the graduate school, his course being exclusively mathe¬ 
matical and rather difficult. He slept 7 or 8 hours, and devoted one- 
half hour to gymnasium exercise or walked 30 minutes to 2 hours 
daily. The main part of his day was spent at intellectual work, aver¬ 
aging 8 to 10 hours. There was practically no change in the pro¬ 
gramme throughout the year. 

The following table shows the results for the three periods of the 
dietary study and the average results for the whole investigation. 


a This ami nil similar (lata refer to values at the beginning of the ex peri men till 
l>erio<l. 





























14 


Tabi.is .‘i.— Kind* of food, number of order*, and ei/*t of each kind , and atrrage cod and 
amount* of jnrotein and energy of dietary *tudy Xo. 401. 

BUBJBCT A. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses, p. 11.J 


Coot, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, S week*, Novenrf/er SO to December SO. 

Chowder (57), 2, 6 cents; K>up (59), 13, 39 cents. 

Total soups, etc.. 

Cheese, sage (91), 1. 1 cent; butler (87), 11, 41 cents; 
milk, glass (95), 15, 30 cents; milk. I*»w 1 (hot) (91), 
1,5 cents; milk. 4-ounce pitchers (%». 30, 30 cents. 

Total dairy products.. 

Prepared cereal (97), 2. 8 cents; hominy (100), 2. 8 
cents; oatmeal (103), 21, 84 cents; rice (106), 5, 20 

cents. Total breakfast cereals, etc.. 

Bread, white (113), 13,13 cents; bread, Gruham (116), 
89, 89 cents; bread. Boston brown (122), 6,12 cents; 
Graham gems (130), 8. 8 cents; crackers for soup 
(152), 15,15cents; bread, com (119), 5.5 cents; rolls 
(131), 6, 6 cents; biscuit (125), 8, 8 cents. Total 

breads, crackers, etc. 

Cake (158), 4, 8« cents; gingerbread (168), 1, 1 cent; 

pie (172), 2. 10 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Potatoes, baked (199), 11, 22 cents; sweet potatoes 
(216), 4. 8 cents; succotash (230), 1, 3 cents. Total 

vegetables.. 

Bananas (246), 1, 2 cents; oranges (252), 2. 6 cents. 

Total fruits.. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 140,0 h . 

Cereal coffee <2641 6,15cents; cocoa (262), 9,27 cents. 

Total beverages. 

Combination lunches(271),6,60cents; dinners (274), 
6, 72 cents. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 

Period S, S uerkt, February 11, to March 6. 

Beefsteak pie (26), 1, 10 cents. 

Chowder (o7), 1, 3 cents; soup(60), 3. 9 cents. Total 

soups, etc. 

Butter (88), 45, 45 cents; milk, glass (95), 17, 34 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 39. 39 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Prepared cereal (98), 9. 36 cents; oatmeal (104), 21, 
63 cents; rice (107), 2, 6 cents; wheat (110), 7, 21 

cents. Total breakfast cereals, etc. 

Bread, Graham (117). 103, $1.03; bread. Boston brown 
(123), 5, 10 cents; biscuit (126), 2, 2 cents. Total 
bread, cracker*, etc. 

Pie (173), 1, 6 cents; tarts (181), 1, 2 cents. Total 

desserts . 

Potatoes, baked (200), 9. 18 cents; potatoes, boiled 
(202). 1, 2 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 11, 22 cents. 

I'otal vegetable s. 

Oranges (250), 20, 60 cents. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 146,05. 

Cocoa (262), 12,86cents; coffee (263), 1,3cents. Total 

beverages . 

Combination lunches (272), 11. $1.10; dinners (275), 
2, 24 cents. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 


Pcruxi S, 3 uerk*. May 8 to May S8. 

Beef, roast (8), 3, 30 cents. 

Kggs. dropped (77), 10,** 30 cents; eggs, fried (80), l.o 3 
cents; eggs, scrambled (86), 1, 8 cents; egg omelet 

(83). 1, 8 cents. Total eggs. 

Chowder (67), 3, 9cents; soup (61), 3,9 cents. Total 

soups, etc. 

Cream (with strawberries) (93), 1,0;5 butter (89), 35, 
35 cents; milk, glass (95), 1. 2 cents; milk, bowl 
(94 1 , 14. 66 cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 81, 
31 cents. Total dairy products. 


Total. 

Digesli 

bto 

Avail¬ 

able 




Coat. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

protein. 

energy. 

Cent*. 

Gram*. 

t Vi h/rie*. 

Gram*. 

Calorie*. 

2.1 

3.9 

65 

8.8 

56 

5.1 

10.7 

413 

10.4 

384 

6.7 

9.6 

297 

8.2 

270 

7.4 

41.4 

1,429 

35.2 

1,300 

.9 

1.3 

91 

1.1 

85 

1.6 

3.1 

156 

2.6 

142 

.4 

.2 

13 

.2 

11 



237 


232 

2.0 

1.0 

27 

1.0 

27 

6.3 

16.7 

479 

15.4 

441 

31.6 

87.9 

8,207 

77.9 

2.948 

.5 

1.8 

33 

1.8 

29 

.6 

.9 

14 

.9 

12 

5.6 

12.1 

462 

11.7 

430 

6.0 

9.7 

313 

8.2 

285 

5.6 

33.3 

1,110 

28.3 

1,010 

.3 

.4 

33 

.3 

31 

2.0 

4.7 

276 

3.9 

251 

2.9 

1.3 

82 

1.1 

72 



247 


242 

1.9 

1.2 

34 

1.2 

33 

6.4 

19.6 

587 

18.0 

540 

31.7 

85.0 

3,191 

75.4 

2,935 

1.4 

3.0 

39 

2.9 

34 

2.3 

6.3 

106 

6.1 

94 

.9 

1.7 

32 

1.6 

28 

5.9 

13.9 

471 

13.5 

438 


<*See footnote h to Table 1. 6See footnote r to Table 1. e Orders for one-half the usual amount. 

























































15 


Table 4. — kind* of food, number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study So. 401— Continued! 

SUBJECT A—Continued. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 3, 3 weeks, Mai/ s to May ^--Continued. 

Prepared cereal (99), 2, 8 cents; hominy (102), 1, 3 
cents; oatmeal (105), 21, 03 cents; rice (108), 5, 15 
cents; shredded wheat (109), 1,<* 2 cents; wheat 

(111), 4, 12cents. Total breakfast cereals, etc. 

Bread, white (115), 2, 2 cents; bread, Graham (118), 
98, 98 cents; bread, brown (124), 2, 4 cents; bread, 
corn (121), 1, 1 cent; biscuit (127), 2, 2 cents; grid- 
dlecakes (146), 1, 4 cents; toast, creamed (138), 1, 
0 cents; crackers for soup (154), 1, 1 cent. Total 

bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake (160). 4, 4 cents; ice cream (184), 1, 7 cents; pie 
(174), 2, 8 cents; pudding (177), 4, 16 cents. Total 

desserts. 

Beans, baked (191), 2, 8 cents; potatoes, l*>iled (202), 
1, 2 cents; potatoes, hashed (214), 1, 2 cents; pota¬ 
toes. mashed (205), 3, 6cents. Total vegetables_ 

Bananas (244), 3, 6 cents; oranges (251), 6. 18 cents; 
strawberries (with cream) (256), 1, 7 cents. Total 

fruits. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 150, 0 ;b sirup (260), 1, 2 

cents. Total sugar, etc. 

Cocoa (262), 10, 30 cents; lemonade (267), 2, 4 cents; 

tea (263), 1, 3 cents. Total beverages. 

Combination lunches (273), 8 , ho cents; dinners 
(276), 5, 60 cents. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 

Average for three periods. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

• 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

4.9 

Grams. 

9.6 

Caloi'ics. 

302 

Grams. 

8.2 

Calories. 

275 

5.6 

30.5 

999 

26.9 

909 

1.7 

2.7 

147 

2.3 

137 

.9 

2.5 

79 

2.1 

72 

1.5 

.5 

41 

.4 

36 

.1 


264 


259 

1.8 

1.0 

37 

1.0 

36 

6.6 

12.2 

409 

11.2 

376 

33.6 

83.9 

2,926 

75.2 

2,694 

32.3 

85.6 

3,10H 

76.2 

2,859 


a Order for one-half the usual amount. 6 See footnote ;• to Table 1. 


In regard to the diet of this subject, the most striking feature is the 
exceedingly small amount of meat, eggs, and fish eaten, roughly about 
35 per cent of the digestible protein being derived from animal foods 
and 65 per cent from vegetable foods. In period 1 no meat, fish, 
eggs, or hash was eaten except that served in the combination meals, 
and such meals amounted to hut a small fraction of the total diet, 
furnishing only about 20 per cent of the total digestible protein and 
15 per cent of the total available energy. 

In periods 2 and 3 the protein furnished by the meat eaten, aside 
from that of the combination meals, was also low, amounting to only 
about 2.5 to 4 per cent of the total. Eggs were eaten only in period 
3, and then in double the average amount. The small amounts of 
meats, fish, and hash eaten by Subject A are very noticeable when 
comparison is made with the average for the ten subjects included in 
this investigation. In such an average about 13 per cent of the total 
cost of the average diet was for meats, fish, and hash, which fur¬ 
nished about IT percent of the total digestible protein and 5.5 percent 
of the total available energy, whereas Subject A spent about 2 per 
cent of his total outlay on meats, lish, and hash, yielding about 2 per 








































cent of the total digestible protein and less than 1 per cent of the 
total available energy. At the same time the sum spent by Subject A 
on cereals and on soups was about loo per cent, and on breadstuff* 
88 per cent more than the average of the subjects studied, while his 
expenditure for desserts was al>out 50 per cent and for vegetables and 
for beverages al>out 70 per cent of the average. It should l>e men¬ 
tioned that, owing to the choice of the cheapest foods, he obtained for 
1 cent speitf on breadstuff* nearly 25 per cent more nutrients and on 
vegetables aland 15 per cent more than the average for all the men 
studied. With the other classes of food he bought for 1 cent not far 
from the average amounts. 

It has been i>ointed out that about 65 per cent of the protein was of 
vegetable origin. It is further true that breads and cereals together 
furnished by far the larger part of this protein (over 50 per cent of 
the total in the diet) and a like proportion of energy, the amounts 
from vegetables proper and fruits being very small, about 8 or 4 per 
cent. 

The total digestible protein in the diet for the three period* averages 
70.2 grams, or about £3 per cent of the commonly accepted standard 
for a man of sedentary habits, namely, 92 grams of digestible protein. 
On tin* other hand, the available energy averages 2,859 calories, or 
rather more than the standard calls for, i. e., 2,700 calories of available 
energy. The quantity of protein was remarkably uniform through 
the three periods (fall, winter, and spring), but the energy dropped 
from about 2,940 calories (average of fall and winter) to 2,694 calories 
in the spring term. 

The small sum (about one-half as much as the average) spent on 
dessert* is wise, since such foods would have furnished little protein 
and energy in proportion to their cost; but the 6 per cent of the aver¬ 
age outlay per day spent on beverages might have been avoided with 
advantage and the sum expended for more nourishing foods. Milk is 
not included under the head of beverages, but appears under “dairy 
products." It is an economical food. 

Subject A led throughout the year a regular life, with constant appli¬ 
cation to his university work. His diet was practically constant, being 
unusually low in protein and almost vegetarian in character. At the 
end of the investigation, May, 1901, he showed a gain of 7.5 pounds. 
As may be seen from Table 16, his general strength, as shown on 
the machines, and his chest, waist, and thigh measurements increased 
proportionately. At the beginning of the study he was classed after 
examination as underdeveloped and undernourished. At the end no 
marked change showed itself other than the increase in bodily weight. 
His intellectual efforts, if we may judge from the grades attained in 
his studies (see Table 18, p. 61). were attended with success al>ove the 


17 


ordinary. I n other words, the diet of Subject A, although very low in 
protein and about equal to the average as regards energy, appears to 
have been a little more than sufficient to maintain him in equilibrium 
with his environment, which was essentially one calling for intellectual 
and not physical work. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 402. 

Subject B was 20 years of age, 5 feet 3.6 inches in height, and weighed 
131.8 pounds. In general development he was apparently not far from 
the average of his age, although in point of nutrition he was classed 
among the fairly well nourished. He was a freshman in the college, 
and Latin, German, French, history, and physics all found a place in 
the course he selected for the year. To his college duties he devoted 
7 to 8 hours per day, including lectures, reading, and preparation. He 
slept 7 to 8 hours. In the fall he walked or played football one hour 
every other day on an average. In the winter he walked from 30 
minutes to 1 hour every other day, and in the spring he played base¬ 
ball for 30 minutes to 2 hours with about the same frequency. In 
addition to his studies and exercise, during period 1 he worked in a 
barber shop at odd times, and during period 2 he added to this pro¬ 
gramme by serving as a student waiter at Randall Hall for one or two 
hours daily for about a week. In period 3, the spring period, he did 
no work outside of his academic course. 


Table 4. — Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each hind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 402. 

SUBJECT B. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses see p. 11.] 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, 3 weeks, November 30 to December 20. 

Beef, roast (6), 2,20 cents; beef, pressed corned (5), 
1,8 cents; potpie (-25), 1,10 cents; beef hash (20), 
5,35 cents; pork chops (42), 1, 10 cents. Total 

meats, etc.. 

Chowder (57), 1,3 cents; soups (59), 2,6 cents. Total 

soups, etc. 

Smelts, fried (65), 1,10 cents. 

Eggs, dropped (77), 1, 8 cents; eggs, with toast (77), 2, 

lOcents; egg omelet (81), 1,10 cents. Total eggs. 

Butter (87), 27,27 cents; cheese (90), 5,5 cents; milk, 
bowl (94), 9, 36 cents; milk, glass (95), 3, 6 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 12, 12 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Hominy ( 100 ),7,28 cents; oatmeal (103),2,8 cents; 
rice ('106), 1,4 cents; wheat (112),2,8 cents. Total 

cereals... 

Bread, white (113),84,34 cents; bread, Graham (116), 
9 ,9cents; bread, corn (119), 17,17cents; rolls(131), 
14,14 cents; toast (134), l,2cents; toast (with eggs) 
(140), 2, 4 cents; toast, buttered (137), 1, 3 cents; 
crackers, for soup (152), 24 , 24 cents; buckwheat 
cakes (143),2,10 cents. Total bread, crackers, etc. 
Cake (168), 2,2 cents; pudding, plum (175), 1,5 cents. 
Total desserts. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

(ir<ons. 

('itlories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

4.0 

12.2 

213 

11.8 

185 

.4 

.8 

14 

.8 

12 

.5 

1.5 

11 

1.5 

9 

1.6 

2.8 

42 

2 7 

37 

4.1 

9.5 

322 

9.2 

299 

2.3 

2.6 

102 

2.2 

93 

6.6 

25.5 

881 

21.7 

802 

.3 

. 7 

34 

.6 

32 


1 3037—No. 152—05-3 


























lft 


Tahlk 4. — Kind s of food, number of orders, and amt of each kind, and acetone co*t and 
amount * of protein and energy of dietary study *\o. 40f. —Cent in in*!. 

SUBJECT B— Continued. 


Cost, protein, and energy of dully f«**d. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, i»nd cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, 8 treck*, Xovember .10 to December to —Cont’d. 

Beans,linked (180), 16,80cents; potatoes, fried (207), 
l,2cents; potatoes, lyonnaise (211 ), 2,4 cents; sweet 

r >tatoes (216). 1,2 cents; hash, vegetable (286), 1, 

cents. Total vegetables. 

Sirup (260),2,4 cents; sugar, teaspoonfuls (259),216, 

0«. Total sugars, etc. 

Cereal coffee (264),8,9 cents; cocoa (2*521,3,9 cents; 
coffee (263),7,21 cents; tea (268),9,27cents. Total 

beverages.. 

Combination breakfasts (268), 4, 40 cents; lunches 
(271), 9. 90 cents: dinners (274), 11, 81.32. Total 
combination meals. 

Total food. 

Period t, S week*, February \U to March 6. 

Beef tongue (16). 1, 10 cents; beef, tripe (17). 1, 10 
cents; beef hash (21), 4. 28 cents; beefsteak pie 

(26), 4. 40 cents. Total meats, etc. 

Chowder (57), 2, 6 cents; purge of peas (58), 1, 3 

cents. Total soups, etc. 

Kggs (with toast) (<7), 3. 24 cents. 

Butter (88), 22, 22 cents; cream (92), 1, 2 cents; milk, 
bowl (94). 11, 44 cents; milk, glass (95), 16. 30 
cents; milk, 4ounce pitchers(96), 14,14 cents. To¬ 
tal dairy products. 

Prepared cereals (98). 5, 20 cents; hominy (101), 3. 

9 cents; oatmeal (104), 2. 6 cents; rice (107), 3, 9 
cents; wheat (110), 2, 6 cents. Total breakfast 

cereals . 

Bread, white(U4). 30. 30 cents; bread,Graham (117), 
1, 1 cent; bread, corn (120). 39, 39 cents; biscuit 
(126), 2, 2 cents; gems, Graham (128). 2. 2 cents; 
rolls (132), 15, 15 cents; t«*ast, buttered (135), 2. 6 
cents; toast (with eggs) (140), 3, *5 cents; scones 
(142). 1, 1 cent: macaroni (157), 1. 7cents: griddle- 
cakes (145), 1. 5 cents. Total bread, crackers, etc.. 
Cake (159), 1. 1 cent; gingerbread (1(59), 4. 4 cents; 

pie (173). 1. 6 cents. Total desserts. 

Beans, baked (190), 6, 20 cents; potatoes, lyonnaise 

(213), 1, 2 cents. Total vegetaoles. 

Bananas i 213). 9. Is cents. 

Sirup (260), 1.2 cents; sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 236, 

0.« Total sugars, etc. 

Cocoa (262), 1, 3 cents; coffee (263), 4. 12 cents; tea 

(263), 1, 3 cents. Total beverages. 

Combination breakfasts (269). 8, 80 cents; lunches 

a 6, (50 cents; dinners (275), 8, 96 cents. Total 
ination meals. 

Total food. 

I'crutd .5, 8 week*, May 8 to May J8. 

Beef, roast (8), 4.40 cents; beefsteak < 12). 1, 10 cents; 
beef hash (22), 1, 6 cents; lamb, minced (with 
toast) (38), 1, 8 cents: pork, chops (42), 2,20 cents. 

Total meat", etc. 

Chowder (57), 1. 3 cents; soujw (61), 4, 12 cents. 

Total soups, etc. 

Mackerel (64), 5. 50 cents... 

Eggs (with toast) (77). 2, 12 cents. 

Butter (89), 14, 14 cents; cream (92), 10, 20 cents; 
milk, bowl (94), 9. 36 cents; inilk. glass (95). 3, 

6 cents; milk. 4-ounce pitchers (96), 2,2 cents. To¬ 
tal dairy products. 

Prepared cereal (99), 1. 4 cents; hominy (102), 3, 9 
cents; oatmeal (105), 2. 6 cents; rice (108), 5, 15 
cents’ wheat (111), 2, 6 cents. Total breakfast 
cereals, etc. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

LYid*. 

Oram*. 

Calorie*. 

Oram4. 

Calorie*. 

3.5 

13.8 

300 

11.0 

273 

.2 


885 


5177 

3.1 

1.4 

34 

1.4 

33 

12.5 

33.0 

928 

30.4 

854 

38.1 

103.3 

3,266 

93.3 

3,006 

4.2 

12.5 

207 

12.1 

180 

.4 

.9 

21 

.9 

18 

1.1 

1.9 

24 

1.8 

21 

5.3 

13.7 

397 

13.3 

369 

2.4 

3.5 

131 

3.0 

119 

5.4 

22.0 

749 

18.7 

682 

.5 

1.0 

64 

.9 

60 

1.0 

4.6 

951 

3.8 

85 

.9 

.6 

43 

.4 

38 

. 1 


409 


401 

.9 

.4 

10 

.4 

10 

11.3 

30.1 

854 

27.7 

786 

33.5 

91.1 

3,002 

83.0 

2,769 

4.0 

12.2 

224 

11.8 

195 

.7 

1.4 

24 

1.4 

21 

2.4 

7.6 

62 

7.3 

53 

.6 

1.2 

16 

1.2 

14 

3.7 

7.3 

272 

7.1 

258 

1.9 

2.8 

111 

2.4 

101 


».See footnote r to Table 1. 






















































19 


Table 4. kinds of food, number of orders , and cost of each kind , and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 402— Continued! 

SUBJECT B—Continued. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 3, 3 weeks, May 8 to May 28 —Continued. 

Bread, white (115), 27, 27cents; bread, Graham (118), 
3. 3 cents; bread, corn (121), 20, 20 cents; gems, 
Graham (129), 1, 1 cent; rolls (133), 18, 18 cents; 
toast, buttered (136), 2, 6 cents; toast (with eggs 
and with lamb) (140), 3, 6 cents; griddlecakes 
(146), 2, 8 cents; macaroni (156), 2,12cents. Total 

breads, crackers, etc. 

Cake, chocolate (160), 1, 1 cent; pudding, Indian 
(178), 1, 4 cents; pie (174), 6, 24 cents; ice cream 

(184), 1, 7 cents. Total desserts. 

Beans, baked (191), 4, 16 cents; beets, pickled (219), 
1, 3 cents; potatoes, baked (201), 2, 4 cents; pota¬ 
toes, boiled (202), 4 , 8 cents; potatoes, German 
fried (210), 2, 4 cents; potatoes, lyonnaise (212), 1, 
2 cents; radishes (228), 1, 4 cents. Total vegeta¬ 
bles. 

Bananas (244), 3, 6 cents; oranges (251), 1, 3 cents. 

Total fruits.. 

Sirup (260), 5, 10 cents; sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 

212, 0.« Total sugars, etc.. 

Cocoa (262), 1, 3 cents; coffee (263), 2,6 cents; lemon¬ 
ade (267), 3, 6 cents; tea (263), 15, 45 cents. Total 

beverages.. 

Combination breakfasts (270), 4, 40 cents; lunches 
(273), 11, SI.10; dinners (276), 7, 84 cents. Total 
combination meals. 

Total food.. 

Average for three periods. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

Grains. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

4.8 

19.8 

650 

16.8 

592 

1.7 

2.4 

160 

2.0 

149 

2.0 

4.9 

141 

4.1 

128 

.4 

.2 

17 

.2 

15 

.5 


408 


400 

2.9 

1.3 

41 

1.3 

40 

11.1 

21.5 

706 

19.8 

650 

36.7 

82. 5 

2,832 

75.4 

2,611 

36.1 

92.3 

3,033 

83.9 

2,795 


«See footnote r to Table 1. 


With a normal average diet as a basis of comparison there is nothing 
especially noticeable in regard to the total amounts of protein and 
energy in the dietary of Subject B. As regards the amount of meat, 
fish, and hash eaten, he spent IT per cent of his daily outgo, exclusive 
of combination meals, on such foods, which is practically identical 
with the average for the ten men studied. In other words, the pro¬ 
portion of protein furnished by animal foods was 56 per cent of the 
total, and the energy furnished b} r vegetable foods about 65 per cent. 
The ratio of digestible protein from animal to that from vegetable 
sources in the average American diet has been found to be about 60 
to 40 per cent, in round numbers, and the corresponding ratio for 
available energy 43 to 57 per cent. It is evident that the diet of this 
subject furnished nearly the usual proportion of animal and vegetable 
foods. The number of combination meals eaten was large, the amount 
spent for these being almost twice as great as the average for the 
ten men. 

In the case of meats, soups, breads, dairy products, and beverages 
the proportional daily expenditure was very close to the average. 
For eggs, cereals, and vegetables it was, roughly, 75 per cent of the 















































20 


average, and for desserts and fruits nlnmt 35 and 25 }>er cent, respec- 
tivelv. If one's tastes |h* miit it, this is a considerable economy, 
since neither desserts nor fruits furnish nutrients at a low cost. It 
is noticeable that liberal use was made of sugar, which, as already 
pointed out, was supplied without extra charge. The subject thus 
dispensed with the usual expenditure for sirups, etc. For the whole 
dietary, the quantities of digestible protein and available energy show 
a steady decrease toward a minimum in period 3. The average for 
the three periods was 84 grams digestible protein and 2,795 calorics 
of available energy, or 91.5 and 103.5 per cent, respectively, of the 
quantities in the commonly accepted dietary standard for a man of 
sedentary habits. 

Although the quantities of protein and energy in the last period were 
9 and 6 per cent lower, respectively, than in period 2, the cost was 
about 3.3 cents, or 10 per cent higher, owing in part to a greater pro* 
portionate expenditure for fish, desserts, and beverages, which were 
all relatively expensive foods. A corresponding deficit occurs in the 
case of dairy products, cereals, and breads. Perhaps a more potent 
factor in this drop in the value of the ration during period 3 was the 
diminished buying power of 1 cent when expended on some of the 
more important articles. Calculations show, for example, that for 1 
cent spent on combination meals in period 2, Subject B obtained 2.5 
grams of digestible protein and 09.5 calories of available energy, 
whereas in period 3 he obtained only 1.8 grams and 58.5 calories, or, 
respectively, 72 per cent and 83 per cent as much. When we remem¬ 
ber that the combination meals furnished about 30 per cent of the 
total nutrients, it is evident that the effect of their use on total cost 
must be considerable. 

Since a similar falling off in the amounts of nutrients without pro¬ 
portionate decrease in cost was noticed not only in this particular case, 
but in the majority of the dietaries here reported, it is difficult to 
account for it on the assumption of less prudent selection of food by 
the men during the last period. It seems more probable that there 
was a gradual rise in the price of the dishes toward the end of the 
year, or, what amounts to the same thing, a general diminution in the 
weights or the proportion of nutrients in the orders. 

At the end of the spring period (period 3) Subject B weighed 136 
pounds, or 4.2 pounds more than at the beginning of the stud}'. A 
corresponding slight increase was observed in his anthropometric 
measurements. His general strength as shown by the testing machines 
increased less than the average. In point of general physical condi¬ 
tion no material change was noted. 

As regards mental work the grades attained in his examinations were 
about those of the average student. However, for a man with many 


21 


other duties besides those pertaining to his college course, they were 
creditable. 

In Subject B, then, we have a young man, rather more active than 
the average, apparently in equilibrium with the demands of an academic 
life, and living on a ration which is practically identical with the 
standard chosen for comparison. It may be remarked that the gain in 
body weight (about 4 pounds) seems small when we remember that he 
was but 20 years old, and, therefore, probably still developing physic¬ 
ally. It may be that his diet was not liberal enough to provide both 
for the energy involved in his daily life and for the material demanded 
by the growing body. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 403. 

The subject of this study was 23 years old, 5 feet G.l inches in height, 
and weighed 145 pounds. In general development he was not far 
from the average. Medical examination showed that he was only 
fairly well nourished. Doubtless this condition was the result of a 
severe illness contracted during the preceding summer vacation. 

Subject C was entirely dependent upon his own efforts for support 
and was, therefore, obliged to spend much time on outside work. He 
earned his lodging by attending to the furnace in a private house, 
and b} T serving from 1 to 3 hours daily as a waiter at Randall Hall he 
earned his board. lie spent from 10 to 12 hours per day at intellectual 
work, including lectures, study, outside clerical work, and reading. 
For sleep he set aside 7 hours. During periods 1 and 2, the only 
physical exercise other than that involved in walking to and from 
lectures, meals, etc., that he found time for, was a 3-hour walk every 
Sunday afternoon. During period 3 he rode a bicycle 1 hour per day 
for 11 out of the 21 days. 

Subject C was a sophomore in the college department of the uni¬ 
versity. His studies comprised German, philosophy, zoology, hygiene, 
physics, and chemistry, and he carried one whole course and one half 
course more than are regularly required of sophomores. Such a plan 
of study would be considered rather severe even for a student with no 
outside work. 


22 


Tahi.K 5. — Kind* of fowl, number of order*, and ro*t of each kind , and average ro*t and 
amount* of protein and energy of dietary Mindy No. 403. 

SUBJECT C. 

[For explanation of tiumbeni in parentheses, see p. 11.] 



Coat, protein, and energy of daily food. 

Kinds of fissl, numlnT of orders, and coat of each 

kind. 

Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 


Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Peril*! 1, 3 imin, Xoi'ctnber 3o to December ito. 






Beef hash (20), 1,7cents; pork. bac«m (with egg*)(39), 
1,4 cents. Total meats, etc. 

tv ut*. 
0. 5 

Oram*. 

1.3 

Caloric*. 

26 

Oram*. 

1.3 

i\ilorie*. 

22 

Pur»>e of peas (58), 3,9 cents; soup (59), 1, 3 cents. 
Total soups. 

.6 

1.8 

31 

1.3 

27 

Eggs, fried (’with bacon ) (78), l.Kcents; fried (7H|, 1,« 

4 cents; eggomelet (81), 1, lOcents; eggs, scrambled 
(84), 1. IQ cents. Total agga, etc. 

1.5 

3.7 

76 

3.6 

68 

Butter (87),22.22cents; milk, glan (95). 33, 66 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 2, 2 cents. Total 
dairy products. 

4.3 

10.8 

332 

10. 5 

309 

Prepared cereals (97). 1, 4 cents; oatmeal, (103), 2. 8 
cents; shreddea wheat (109), 6, 20 cents. Total 
breakfast cereals. 

1.5 

2.6 

87 

2.1 

79 

Bread, Graham (116), 65, 65 cents; bread, corn (119), 
11, 11 cents; rolls (131), 4, 4 cents; griddlecakes 
(147), 1, 5cents; macaroni (166), 2, 14 cents. Total 
bread, crackers, etc. 

4.2 

19.9 

643 

16.9 

686 

Gingerbread (168), 1. 1 cent; pie (172), 1, 6 cents; 
coffee jelly (185), 1. 4 cents; ice cream (182), 1, 7 
cents. Total desserts, etc. 

.8 

.7 

60 

.6 

47 

Beans, baked (189), 2, 8 cents; beans, Lima (192), 3. 

9 cents; celery (222), 2, 10 cents; potatoes, baked 
(199), 4, 8 cents; potatoes, hashed (214), 1, 2 cents; 
sweet potatoes (216), 9, 18 cents; succotash (230), 

1, 3 cents. Total vegetables. 

2.8 

6.1 

266 

5.1 

242 

Oranges (262), 1, 3 cents. 

.1 

.1 

4 

.1 

4 

Sirup (260), 1.2cents; sugar, teaspoon fuls (269), 43,0.6 
Total sugars, etc. 

.1 


83 

81 

Coffee (263), 17. 51 cents. 

2.4 

.1 

26 

.1 

25 

Combination breakfasts (268), 13. 81.30; lunches 
(271), 18,61.80: dinners (274), 11. 81.32. Total com¬ 
bination meals. 

21.1 

66.5 

1,622 

51.1 

1,492 


Total food. 

39.9 

102.0 

3.244 

92.7 

2,981 


Period i, 3 trrek*, February It, to March 6. 






Beef stew (9), 1, 10 cents; beef hash (21). 3, 21 cents; 
pork, bacon (with egg*) (40), 1, 4 cents. Total 
meats, etc . 

1.7 

7.1 

91 

6. 9 

79 

Eggs (with bacon) (79), 1, 8 cents; eggs, scrambled 
(ST>). 1. 10 cents. Total eggs, etc. 

.9 

2.2 

47 

2.1 

42 

Butter (88), 33, 33 cents; milk, glass (95), 8. 16 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 13, 13 cents. Total 
dairv products. 

2.9 

4.9 

251 

4.8 

233 

Oatmeal (104), 4. 12 cents; rice (107), 1. 3 cents; 
shredded wheat (109), 5, 20 cents. Total break¬ 
fast cereals. 

1.7 

2.5 

88 

2.1 

80 

Bread, white (114), 9, 9 cents; bread, Graham (117), 
54, 64 cents; bread, corn (120), 10, 10 cents; biscuit 
(126), 1, 1 cent; rolls 1 132), 2, 2 cents; scones (142), 

1,1 cent. Total bread, crackers, etc. 

3.7 

21.3 

691 

18.1 

632 

Gingerbread (169), 5, 5 cents: eclairs (167), 1, 4 cents; 
pie (173), 3,16 cents; coffee jelly (186), 10, 40cents. 
Total desserts, etc. 

3.0 

3.3 

177 

2.8 

165 

Beans, baked (190),2. 8 cents; beans, Lima (193), 1,3 
cents: peas (1%), 3, 9 cents: potatoes, baked (200), 

6, 10 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 16, 32 cents; cab¬ 
bage (220), 2, 6 cents; corn, stewed (224). 4. 12 
cents; pickles (238), 5. 5 cents; spinach (229), 1, 2 
cents. Total vegetables. 

4.1 

8.4 

401 

7.0 

366 

Bananas (243), 5, 10 cents; oranges (260), 7, 21 cents. 
Total fruits.1. 

1.5 

.9 

61 

.8 

66 

Sugar, teasponnfuls (269), 57, 0 6. 


96 


94 

Cereal coffee (261), 2. 6 cents; cocoa (262), 2, 6 cents; 
Coffee (263), 27, 81 cents. Total leverages. 

4.4 

2.1 

47 

2.0 

46 

Combination breakfasts (269), 11. 81.10; lunches 
( 972 ), 16, 61.60; dinners (275), 8, 96 cents. Total 
combination meals. 

17.4 

48.9 

1,440 

46.0 

1,325 



Total food. 

41.3 

101.6 

3,396 

91.6 

3.117 



a Order for one-half the usual amount. b See footnote r to Table L 


























































23 


Table •>. Kinds of food, number of orders , and cost of each kind , and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 403— Continued. 

SUBJECT C—Continued. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period S, S weeks, May s to May IS. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 


Cost. 


I’rotein. 


Energy. 


Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 


Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 


Beef, roast (8), 5, 50 cents; beef stew (9). 1, 10 cents; 
beef bash (*22), 3, IS cents; beef, corned (4), 2, It; 
cents; hash of ham and eggs (47), 1, 10 cents. 

Total meats, etc. 

Pur£e of peas (58), 3, 9 cents; soup (til), 2, 6 cents. 

Total soups, etc. 

Kggs, scrambled (80), 1, 8 cents; eggs, dropped (77), 

1, 0 cents. Total eggs. 

Cream (with strawberries) (93), 1, 0;« milk, glass 
(95), 5, 10 cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 10, 10 
cents; butter (89), 38, 38 cents. Total dairy 

products. 

Prepared cereals (99), 1, 4 cents; oatmeal (105)* 1. 3 
cents; wheat (111), 7, 21 cents. Total breaklast 

cereals . 

Bread, white (115), 1, 1 cent; bread, Graham (118*)*,* 
CO, 60 cents; bread, corn (121), 8, 8 cents; griddle- 
cakes (146), 2, 8 cents; macaroni (156), 2, 12 cents; 
scones (142), 3, 3 cents. Total bread,crackers, etc. 
Cookies (163), 2, 2 cents; cake (160), 6, 6 cents: pie 
(174), 6, 24 cents; pudding (177), 2, 8 cents; short¬ 
cake, crust (180), 2, 0;a shortcake, strawberries 
(179), 2, 15 cents; coffee jelly (187), 1, 4 cents; ice 

cream (184), 3, 21 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Beans, Lima (194), 5, 10 cents; beans, wax (195), 1, 2 
cents; beans, baked (191), 1, 4 cents; cabbage 
(221), 3. 6 cents; corn (225), 6, 12 cents; peas (197), 
1,2 cents; pickles (239), 2, 2 cents; potatoes, stewed 
(206), 1, 2 cents; potatoes, baked (201), 4, 8 cents; 
potatoes, mashed (205), 6, 12 cents; radishes (228), 
1, 4 cents; succotash (231), 5, 10 cents; tomatoes 
(233), 1, 2 cents; turnips (235), 1, 2 cents. Total 

vegetables, etc. 

Apples (240), 3, 6 cents; bananas (244), 7, 14 cents; 
oranges (251), 17, 51 cents; strawberries (256), 2, 15 

cents. Total fruits. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 6-1, 0;« sirup (260), 2, 4 

cents. Total sugar, etc. 

Coffee (263), 25, 76 cents; birch beer (266), 1, 5 cents; 
ginger aie (266), 2, 10 cents; lemonade (267), 7, 14 
cents; sarsaparilla (266), 1, 5 cents. Total bever¬ 
ages . 

Combination breakfasts (270), 7, 70 cents; lunches 
(273), 16, 81.60; dinners (276), 2, 24 cents. Total 
combination meals . 

Total food. 

Average of three periods. 


Guts. 

Grains. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

6.0 

18.0 

229 

17.5 

199 

. 7 

1.7 

34 

1.6 

29 

. 7 

2.6 

52 

2.5 

•16 

2.7 

3.5 

261 

3.4 

243 

1.3 

2.3 

79 

2.0 

72 

4.4 

21.0 

684 

17.9 

622 

3.8 

5.0 

315 

4.3 

293 

3.7 

6.3 

209 

5.2 

190 

4.1 

1.7 

116 

1.4 

102 

.2 


111 


109 

5.2 

1.8 

87 

1.7 

85 

12.1 

23.3 

819 

21.4 

753 

43.9 

87.2 

2,948 

78.9 

2,743 

41.7 

96.9 

3,196 

87.7 

2,947 


a See footnote r to Table 1. 


The average amount of digestible protein furnished by the diet 
selected by the subject is not far from the quantity called for by the 
standard selected for comparison, whereas in general the amount of 
energy was somewhat higher than the standard called for. About 54 
per cent of the total digestible protein and 34 per cent of the available 
energy in the average diet of Subject C came from animal food. It 
is noticeable that nearly 40 per cent of the nutrients in the average 
ration for the three periods was furnished by the combination meals. 
In other words, he lived half on foods which he selected and half on 
meals selected by the commons management. The use of many com- 



















































24 


l>itmtinn meals explains the fact that a nuinlier of important classes of 
food appear in quantities considerably Itelow the average. For example, 
separate orders of meats and cereals were eaten in alsmt one-half the 
average amounts, and dairy products, eggs, and breads in about 65 
j)er cent of the average amounts. Besides combination meals, the only 
articles chosen in quantities greater than the average for the ten men 
studied were vegetables and beverages (chiefly coffee), lioth of which 
were about 20 per cent above tin* average. On tin* basis of economy 
so much cotFee was not a wise selection, since its value as a source of 
nutrients and energy is very small in proportion to the cost and due 
chiefly to the milk and sugar which are added to it. In this dietary, 
therefore, about 0.5 per cent of the total sum was expended for articles 
3 'ielding only about 1.5 per cent of the total digestible protein and 
available energy. This is noteworthy when it is remembered that 0.9 
per cent of the total outlay was for breadstuffs, which yielded 20 per 
cent of the total protein and energy. 

For the first two periods, fall and winter, the rations were more 
abundant than later, furnishing on an average 92.1 grams of digestible 
protein and 3,049 calories of available energy, or 100 per cent and 113 
per cent, respectively, of the values called for by the standard selected 
for comparison. In period 3, however, the protein dropped to 78.9 
grams and the energy to 2,743 calories (86 and 101 per cent, respec¬ 
tively, of the standard), while the cost increased to 43.9 cents, or about 
8.5 j>er cent more than the average for the first two periods. It is evi¬ 
dent that, as compared with the subjects already noted, Subject C was 
not getting a large return for his investment. He might have secured 
tin* same amount of protein and energy if he had selected a larger 
proportion of foods similar to those chosen by Subjects A and B. 

'Fhe chief reason for tin* sudden drop in the nutritive value of the 
ration of Subject C, in spite of the higher daily cost, is undoubtedly 
to be found in the tendency to use meats and fruits both relatively 
expensive foods at Randall Hall—in place of combination meals. It 
should be noted that in period 3 he obtained in 1 cent's worth of vegeta¬ 
bles only about 0.8 of the protein and 0.6 of the energy that 1 cent's 
worth of vegetables furnished in periods 1 and 2. Similarly, for the 
same sum, the combination meals yielded only 0.7 to 0.8 as much as in 
periods 1 and 2. Of the two conceivable causes of this condition 
(higher relative cost and less wise choice of dishes during period 3), it 
seems probable that higher cost was responsible for the lower value per 
money unit of the combination meals and that a more liberal use of 
green spring vegetables was responsible for the lower value of vege¬ 
tables per money unit. In some measure, then, it appears that tin* 
ration of Subject (’ during period 3 must necessarily have been lower 
per money unit because the scale of prices had changed, and, conse- 


25 


quently, no redistribution of the cost items would bring exactly the 
same value as was secured in periods 1 and 2 for the same sum. 

At the end of the study Subject C weighed 143 pounds, or 2 pounds 
less than at the beginning of the investigation, some seven months 
previous. The anthropometric measurements showed very small 
changes, but, as shown by the strength tests, the subject gained rather 
more than the average, indicating a slight improvement in muscular 
condition. Medical examination showed no marked change in his 
general physical condition. 

In his college work Subject C attained a grade between B and C, 
which may be considered slightly above the average. Remembering 
that he carried 6 courses, instead of the usual 4£, and that he sup¬ 
ported himself by outside work, his performance was very creditable 
indeed. 

The general average for the three periods shows 87.7 grams of 
digestible protein and 2,947 calories of available energy in the daily 
food. Although these figures are lower than they would have been 
if he had exercised the same prudence in the selection of economical 
dishes in the last period as he did in the first two periods, they are not 
very far from the commonly accepted standard for a man of sedentary 
habits, namely, 92 grams of digestible protein and 2,700 calories of 
available energ 3 T . It is not at all certain, however, that for a person of 
such active habits and long hours of duty the diet was in every wa} T suf¬ 
ficient for the best functioning of brain and body. It is to be observed 
that, although Subject C had been seriously ill shortly before the 
beginning of the college year, his bodily weight was less at the end of 
the study than at the beginning, whereas the average gain of the 10 
men studied was 4 per cent over their initial weights. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 404. 

Subject D was 22 years old, 5 feet 0.5 inches in height, and weighed 
119.5 pounds. In the usual physical examination he was classed as 
poorly developed and nourished. 11 is bodily measurements, as well 
as his height, were considerably below the average for men of the 
same age. 

A sophomore in the college, he devoted himself exclusively to math¬ 
ematics and physics, carrying the usual 4 courses, of which one was 
on the subject of physics. He slept 6£ to 71 hours per day. Of all 
the men studied, he devoted the greatest number of hours to his col¬ 
lege work, the time thus spent amounting to 11£ to 12£ hours, or vir¬ 
tually the whole working day. He did no work outside of his college 
course and took practically no exercise, the sum total for the entire 
three periods amounting to only 30 minutes to 1 hour gymnasium 
work per day on 9 days. 

13037—No. 152—05-4 




Tahi.k 6.-—A 'ind* of food, number of order*, ami cod of carl kind, and averaye md aud 
amount* of protein and energy of dietary study No. 404- 


SUBJECT D. 

[For explanation of numlton* in parentheses, m-c p. 11.) 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, ami cost of each 

kind. 


JYruxi 1, 3 writ, yovrmbf r 30 to Iheembcr -0. 

Beefsteak (10), 8, 80 cents: pork. broiled 1mm (with 
eggs) (49). 2, 20 cents; ham cakes (44), 1, 10 cents. 

Total meats, etc. 

Oysters, fried (69), 1. 25 cents; oyster pie (73), 1. 12 
cents; sea trout, fried (66), 1, 10 cents. Total fish, 

etc. 

Eggs (with ham) (78), 2, 16 cents. 

Rutter (87), 103, 31.03; milk, glass (95), 40, 80 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 19. 19 cents; cream 

(92), 1, 2 cents. Total dairy products. 

Hominy (100), 11, 44 cents: oatmeal (103), 1, 4 cents; 

rice (106), 8, 32 cents. Total breakfast cereals, etc. 
Bread, white (113), 1.1 cent; biscuit (125), 2, 2 cents; 
rolls (131), 36. 36 cents; toast, buttered (137), 21, 
63 cents; buckwheat cakes (143), 3, 15 cents; grid- 
dlecakes (147), 6, 25 cents. Total breads, crack¬ 
ers, etc. 

Coffee ielly (185), 1, 4 cents; cake (158), 2. 2 cents; 
doughnuts (164). 2. 2 cents; ice cream (182), 2, 14 
cents; pudding (175), 3, 15 cents. Total desserts, 

etc. 

Corn (223), 1, 3 cents; potatoes, baked (199), 7, 14 
cents; potatoes, lyonnaise (211), 19, 95 cents; sweet 

potatoes (216), 6, 12 cents. Total vegetables. 

Apples, baked (241), 1, 4 cents; bananas (245), 20, 40 

cents; oranges (252). 4, 12 cents. Total fruits. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 50, 0;« sirup (260*, 8, 16 

cents. Total sugars, etc. 

Coffee (263). 3, 9 cents; cocoa (262), 1, 3 cents. Total 

beverages . 

Combination lunches (271), 1. lOcents; dinners (274), 
1,12 cents. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 

Period 5, 3 ueek s, February It, to }farch 6. 

Beef, boiled (1), 1. 10 cents; beefsteak (11), 5, 50 
cents: rump steak (14),3,60 cents; pork sausage 
(50), 1,8 cents; chicken pie (51), 1.12 cents. Total 

meats, etc. 

Oysters, raw, i dozen (68),2,206 cents; scallops, fried 
(74), 1.10 cents; tish balls (76), 1,5 cents. Total 

fish,etc . 

Soups (60), 1,3 cents. 

Butter(H8),91,94 cents; cream (92), 28.56cents; milk, 
glass (95), 12,24 cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 

15,15 cents. Total dairy products. 

Hominy (101), 12,36 cents; rice (107), 3, 9 cents; 
shreddea wheat (109), 14,56 cents. Total break¬ 
fast cereals, etc. 

Rolls (132),26,26 cents; toast,buttered < 135), 13. 39 
cents; buckwheat cakes (144).2,10 cents; griddle- 
cakes (145), 6,30 cents; crackers (153),1,1 cent. 

Total bread, crackers,etc. 

Cake (159). 3, 3 cents; puddings (176), 2, 8 cents; 

sherbet (188), 1,6 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Potatoes, baked (200), 2. 4 cents; potatoes, boiled 
(202),1,2 cents; potatoes, French fried (209),9,45 
cents; potatoes, mashed (204), 1,2 cents; potato 
salad (215), 1,5 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 19,38 
cents; com, stewed (224), 1,3 cents. Total vege¬ 
tables. 

Apples, baked (241), 1,4 cents; bananas (243), 13,26 
cents; grapes (248), 1,5 cents; oranges (250).9,27 
cents; peaches, canned (253). 1,4 cents. Total 
fruits. 


Cost 

Total. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cent*. 

Urn iiik. 

Calorie*. 

Grams. 

Calorie*. 

5.2 

15.0 

17b 

14.6 

153 






2.2 

3.6 

47 

3.5 

40 

.8 

1.1 

22 

1.1 

20 

9.7 

16.4 

814 

15.9 

767 

3.8 

3.7 

166 

3.1 

151 

6.7 

19.1 

706 

16.2 

642 

1.8 

2.1 

117 

1.8 

109 

5.9 

5.6 

844 

4.7 

313 

2.7 

1.6 

114 

1.3 

100 

.8 


16i 


161 

.6 

.3 

7 

.3 

7 

1.0 

2.8 

80 

2.6 

74 

41.2 

71.2 

2,757 

65.1 

2,527 

6.7 

19.7 

242 

19.1 

211 

1.7 

2.8 

28 

2.7 

24 

.1 

.2 

3 

.2 

3 

9.0 

9.0 

738 

7.7 

686 

4.8 

6.4 

268 

5.4 

244 

6.1 

14.0 

508 

11.9 

462 

.8 

1.1 

57 

.9 

53 

4.7 

7.2 

470 

6.0 

428 

3.1 

1.5 

113 

1.3 

99 


"See footnote r to Table 1. 

6Oysters, raw, 15 cents per dozen; 10 cents per half dozen. 
















































I abi.k (>.— A inds of food, number of orders , and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study Xo. 404 —Continued. 

SUBJECT D—Continued. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 2,3 weeks, February 14 to March 6 —Continued. 

Sirup (260), 8, lf> cents; sugar (259),112,0.« Total 

sugars, etc.. 

Chocolate(265),21,$1.05; coffee (263),2,6 cents. Total 
beverages..•.. 

Total food.. 

Period 3, 3 weeks, May 8 to May 28. 

Beefsteak (12),5,50 cents: pork,ham cake (44),2,20 

cents. Total meats, etc. 

Soups (61),2,6 cents.. 

Bass, fried (62), 1,10 cents; mackerel (64),4,40 cents; 
shrimp salad (75), 1,15 cents; trout, baked (66), 1, 

10 cents. Total fish, etc. 

Eggs,scrambled (86),2,16 cents.. 

Butter (89), 75, 75 cents; cream (92), 43,6 84 cents; 
milk,glass (95), 1,2 cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers 

(96), 4,4 cents. Total dairy products.. 

Hominy (102), 10, 30 cents; rice (108),2,6 cents; 
shredded wheat (109),34,68cents. Total break¬ 
fast cereals, etc.. 

Biscuit (127), 1,1 cent; rolls (133), 38,38 cents; toast, 
buttered (136), 12, 36 cents; griddlccakes (146), 5. 
20 cents; crackers for soup (154),2,2 cents. Total 

breads, crackers, etc. 

Cake (160),3,3 cents; doughnuts (166), 1, 1 cent; 
puddings (177),1,4 cents; coffee jelly (187),4,16 
cents; icecream (184),2,11 cents; sherbet (188), 1, 

6 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Peas (197), 1,2cents; potatoes, baked (201 ),5,10cents; 
potatoes, boiled (202),6,10 cents; potatoes,griddled 
(210), 1,10 cents; potatoes,French fried (209), 10, 
50 cents; potatoes, 1 yonnaise (212),5,25 cents; corn 
(225),2,4 cents; radishes (228), 2,8 cents; tomatoes 

(233), 1,2 cents. Tota 1 vegetables. 

Bananas (244),6,12 cents; oranges (251), 1,3 cents; 
peaches, canned (253), 7, 28 cents; strawberries 

(256), 3,26 cents. Total fruits, etc. 

Honey (261), 1, 4 cents; sirup (260),5,10 cents; sugar, 

teaspoonfuls (259), 192,0.« Total sugars, etc. 

Chocolate (266), 19,95 cents; coffee (263), 19,57 cents; 
lemonade (267), 2,4 cents. Total beverages. 

Total food. 

Average for three periods. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

Grains. 

Cale/ries. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

0.8 


258 


253 

5.3 

4.0 

135 

3.9 

132 

42.1 

65.9 

2,820 

59.1 

2,595 

3.3 

12.1 

159 

11.7 

138 

.3 

.6 

9 

.6 

8 

3.6 

9.2 

73 

8.9 

62 

.8 

4.1 

87 

4.0 

77 

7.8 

4.8 

659 

4.7 

613 

4.9 

6.7 

275 

5.7 

250 

4.6 

16.3 

586 

13.9 

533 

2.1 

1.8 

103 

1.5 

96 

5.8 

4.7 

246 

3.9 

224 

3.3 

. 7 

49 

.6 

43 

. 7 


386 


378 

7.4 

4.8 

157 

4.7 

154 

44.6 

65.8 

2,789 

•50.2 

2,576 

42.7 

67.6 

2,789 

61.5 

2,566 


«See footnote r to Table 1. 

^Includes one order of cream, served with strawberries, for which there was no charge, 
e Orders for one-half the usual amount. 


In the dietary of this subject the unusually small amounts of protein 
and energy in the total food eaten per diem, the high comparative 
cost of the diet, and the small number of combination meals are 
noticeable. Thus for the three periods the digestible protein averages 
61.5 grams and the available energy 2,566 calories, or 67 and 95 per 
cent, respectively, of amounts called for by the commonly accepted 
standard for a man of sedentary occupation. Though low in nutritive 
value, this ration cost 42.7 cents per day. 

The protein from animal foods amounted to about 54.5 per cent and 
the energy to about 38 per cent of the total. 






























































28 


It is easy to suggest changes whereby the value of the ration might 
have t>een increased without increasing the cost. The amount spent 
for meats, beverages, and cereals is about 35 per cent, that for vege¬ 
tables alxmt 80 per cent, and for fruits about 25 per cent higher than 
the average for the ten men studied. In the ease of cereals this 
increase was profitable, since they are economical foods at the Ran¬ 
dall Hall prices, but, as noted before, meats are an expensive source 
of nutrients, while beverages and fruits yield very little protein and 
energy. Thus for an expenditure of about 7.4 cents, or 17 per cent 
of the total cost of the diet, the fruits and beverages together fur¬ 
nished only about 6.5 per cent of the total digestible protein and 
about 7 per cent of the total available energy, whereas the same sum 
exi>ended for breadstuffs would have increased the diet by nearly one- 
quarter of the total nutrients involved. A further economy could 
have been brought about by devoting part of the sum expended for 
meat, especially during period 2, to combination meals and b}' using 
cheaper meat foods, such as beef stew, beef potpie, meat croquettes, 
and hash, in place of rump steak, sausage, ham cakes, and various 
sorts of fish. In the class of vegetable foods not only was the amount 
spent 80 per cent higher than the average, but the quantities of protein 
and energy procured per unit of money were less. A smaller expendi¬ 
ture for vegetables and the selection of baked beans, baked or hashed 
brown potatoes, and sweet potatoes in place of the more expensive 
potato salad, French fried and lyonnaise potatoes would have been 
more economical. In the case of breads the quantities of digestible 
protein and available energy obtained for 1 cent amounted to but 65 
and 70 per cent, respectively, of the average amounts obtained by the 
ten subjects. The quite general use of toast and griddlccakes in place 
of the more economical white bread was the probable cause of this 
condition, which affects the value of the ration very materially, since 
breadstuffs furnished over 20 per cent of the total nutrients. The 
quantity of protein furnished by the dairy products per money unit 
dropped in period 2 to 60 per cent, and in period 3 to a little over 35 
l>cr cent of that in period 1, owing to a decrease in the amount of milk 
used and an increase in the amount of cream. 

The weight of Subject D, at the end of the investigation, was 120.5 
pounds, showing a gain of 1 pound in about six months. Such a dif¬ 
ference might easily have been occasioned by the daily fluctuation in 
intestinal contents, etc., so we may infer that the weight was practi¬ 
cally constant throughout the college year. Examination showed that 
his general physical condition, which was rather below par at the out¬ 
set, had not changed. Anthropometric measurements also disclosed no 
changes. 

The standing of Subject I> in his studies was creditable. His courses 


29 


may be fairly said to provide a moderately hard years work, yet he 
passed with an average grade of B. 

In general it may be said that this subject, whose diet contained but 
67 per cent of the protein and 95 per cent of the energy called for by 
the standard selected for comparison, did his work well throughout 
the year, and showed neither loss of weight nor any physical deterio¬ 
ration that could be detected by careful medical examination. The 
unusually small quantity of protein in the daily ration brings up the 
question whether he was really in nitrogen equilibrium or whether 
he was losing nitrogen and replacing it by fatty tissue or water. It 
would, therefore, have been especially interesting had opportu¬ 
nity offered to determine the outgo of nitrogen in order to test the 
question. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 405. 


Subject E was 26 years old, 5 feet 5.5 inches in height, and weighed 
136.3 pounds. Although small of stature, his measurements in other 
respects were not far from the general run of men of the same age. 
Examination showed that he was in fair physical condition and fairly 
well nourished. 

He was a senior in the Lawrence Scientilic School and carried about 
seven courses, most of which pertained to engineering. The univer¬ 
sity work was, perhaps, no more difficult than that of many scientific 
students in their senior year. 

He spent daily 7f to 8 hours in sleep, 6£ to 9£ hours in college 
work, and had no outside work. His exercise consisted in walking 
two or three miles per day. 


Table 7. —Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 405. 

SUBJECT E. 

I i 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses, see p. 11.] 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, $ weeks, November 30 to December 20. 

Beef hash (20), 3, 21 cents; beefsteak pie (25), 1, 10 
cents; lamb, roast (32), 3, 30 cents; venison potpie 
(30), 1,10 cents; lamb croquettes (37), 1, 10 cents; 
turkey and sauce (54),4,60cents. Total meats, etc. 
Chowder (57), 5, 15 cents; purte of peas (58), 3, 9 

cents; soup (59), 5, 15 cents. Total soups, etc. 

Oysters, raw (68), 3, 45 cents; oyster pie (73), 1, 12 

cents. Total fish, etc. 

Eggs, raw (77), 2, 16 cents; omelet (81), 2, 20 cents. 

Total eggs, etc. 

Butter (87). 41, 41 cents; milk, bowl (94), 4,« 18 cents; 
milk, glass (95), 49, 98 cents: milk, 4-ounce pitchers 
(96), 6, 6 cents. Total duiry products. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti- 

Available 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

uie 

protein. 

energy. 

Cents. 

6.7 

Grams. 

21.5 

Calories. 

284 

Grams. 

20.9 

Calories. 

247 

1.9 

3.9 

77 

3.8 

66 

2.7 

3.5 

50 

3.4 

43 

1.7 

3.1 

52 

3.0 

46 

7.8 

18.9 

691 

18.3 

550 


«Includes two orders of hot milk. 



















80 


Taiu.k 7. — Kiwi* of food, number of onlera, owl coat of each kiwi, awl average, re tat and 
amount* of /irotein awl energy of dietary atudy So. 40o —Continue*!. 

SUBJECT E—Continue*!, 


Coat, protein, and energy ot fowl. 


Kinds of food, number of order*, and coat «»f eaeh 

kind. 


Prruxl 1, 3 week*, yoi'cmbcr so to December to —Cont'd. 


Prepared cereal (97), 2, 8 cents; rice (106), 2, Scents; 
shredded wheat (109), 2, Scents. Total breakfast 

email. 

Bread, white (113), 63,68cents; bread, Graham.(1161, 
1, 1 cent; bread, corn (119), 12, 12 cents; biscuit 

i l2fi), 1. 1 cent;gemx, Graham (ISO),6,6cents; rolls 
131), 12, 12 cents; toast, creamed (13M), 1, 7 cents. 

ota) I'H ads, crackets, etc. 

Cake, cream (158), 1. 4 cents; pie, apple (172), 4. 20 
cents; pudding, tapioca (175), 3, 15 cents. Total 
desserts.. 


Beans, baked (189), 1. 4 cents; sweet potatoes (216). 
6, 12 cents; celery (222), 3, 15cents; onions, boiled 

(227), 6, IS cents. Total vegetables. 

Apples (240), 16, 32 cents; oranges (252), 3, 9 cents; 

sauce, crunlierry (256), 2, 8 cents. Total fruits_ 

Sugar (‘259). 96. 0a. 

Combination breakfasts (206), 6, so cents; lunches 
(271), 4. 40 cents; dinners (274), 6, 72 cents. Total 
combination meals. 


Total fi>od 


Period t, A uetk*, February 1L in March 6. 

Veal.roast (with dressing) (26), 1,10 cents; dressing 
(with veal) (29), 1, 0«; lamb,roast (38),4,40cents; 

turkey,roast (56),2,30cents. Total meats,etc_ 

Chowder (57),2,6 cents; puree of peas (58), 1, 3 cents; 

soup (60),3,9 cents. Total Houp«,etc.. 

Lolwter (6/),2,50 cents; oyster stew (71), 1,10 cents; 

tishballs (76).2,10 cents.* Total Osh,etc. 

Kggs (with toast) (77), 1,8 cents; egg omelet (82),9, 

90 cents. Total eggs, etc.. 

Blitter (66i, 24, 24 cents; milk, glass (95), 71, $1.42; 
milk,4-ounce pitchers (96),2,2 cents. Total dairy 

products.. 

Prepared cereal (96), 1, 4 cents; rice (107), 1,3 cents. 

Total breakfast cereals.. 

Bread, white (114).87,37 cents; bread,Grahum (117), 
4, 4 cents: bread, corn (120), 11, 11 cents; biscuit 
(126), 1,1 cent; gems.Graham (128),4,4 cents; rolls 
(132), 14, 11 cents; toast (134), 2, 4 cents; toast, 
creamed (136), 1,7 cents; toast (with eggs) (140), 1, 
2 cents; macaroni (157), 1,7 cents. Total breads, 

crackers, etc. 

Puddings (176),2,9 cents. 

Beans, baked (190), 2, 8 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 
10,20 cents; onions, boiled (227),6,18 cents. Total 

Vegetal >les. 

Apples (240), 19,38 cents; bananas (243), 6, 12 cents; 
gni|a*s (2481,2,10cents; oranges (250), 12.36 cents; 

sauce,cranberry (258), 1,4 cents. Total fruits_ 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 16,0". 

Combination breakfasts (269), 6. 60 cents; lunches 
(272),9,90 cents; dinners (275), 8, 96 cents. Total 
combination meals... 

Total fowl. 


Period 3, 3 irrekx. May 8 in May 18 . 

Turkey, mast, and dressing (56), 6.90 cents. 

Puree of jH>as (58), 1, 3 cents; soup (61), 2, 6 cents. 

Total soups,etc. 

Shrimp salad (75). 1,15 cents. 

Eggs, ompiH-d (77), 2,56 cents; egg omelet (83), 4,32 

cents. Total eggs, etc. 

Butter (89). 32, 32 cents; cream (with strawberries) 
(98),3,0"; milk, glass <yfi), 91, $1.62; milk.4-ounce 
pitchers (96),5,6 cents. Total dairy products. 



Total. 


DigCNtJ- 

Available 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

lilt? 

protein. 

energy. 

Cent*. 

Grain*. 

(\dnrir*. 

Gram*. 

Calorie*. 

1.1 

1.0 

65 

0.9 

69 

4.8 

23.8 

765 

20.2 

696 

1.9 

2.7 

160 

2.3 

149 

2.3 

2.8 

140 

2.3 

127 

2.3 

.5 

66 

.4 

58 



166 


168 

9.2 

24.2 

664 

22.3 

611 

42.4 

105.9 

3,060 

97.8 

2,815 

3.8 

12.2 

123 

11.8 

107 

.9 

1.5 

29 

1.5 

25 

3.3 

4.0 

47 

3.9 

40 

4.7 

10.5 

203 

10.2 

181 

8.0 

22.7 

599 

22.0 

557 

.8 

.5 

18 

.4 

16 

4.3 

18.8 

609 

16.0 

554 

.4 

.7 

28 

.6 

26 

2.2 

4.7 

228 

3.9 

207 

4.8 

1.7 

149 

1.4 

131 



27 


27 

11.7 

32.3 

921 

29.7 

847 

44.4 

109.6 

2,981 

101.4 

2,718 

4.3 

17.2 

158 

16.7 

137 

.4 

1.0 

17 

1.0 

15 

.7 

2.2 

13 

2.1 

11 

1.8 

4.3 

81 

4.2 

72 

10.4 

29.7 

807 

28.8 

751 


a See footnote r to Table 1. 6Order* for one-half the usual amount. 



















































31 


Table 7. k inds of food, number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts oj protein and energy of dietary study Xo. 405 —Continued. 

SUBJECT E—Continued. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 3, 3 weeks, May 8 to May 28 —Continued. 

Oatmeal (105), 3,9 cents; rice (108), 1,3 cents; shred¬ 
ded-wheat (109), l,o2cents; wheat (111), 1,3 cents. 

Total breakfast cereals. 

Bread, white (115), 45, 45 cents; bread, corn (121),5, 
5 cents; gems, Graham (129) 9, 9 cents; rolls (133), 
18,18 cents; toast (134), 1, 2 cents; toast (with as¬ 
paragus) (141), 3, 05; macaroni (156), 1, 6 cents. 

Total breads, etc. 

Cake (160), 3, 3 cents; pie (174), 1, 4 cents; pudding 
(177),3,12 cents; tarts (181), 1, 2 cents; ice cream 

(184), 1,7 cents. Total desserts. 

Peas (197), 2, 4 cents; potatoes, mashed (205), 4, 8 
cents; asparagus (with toast) (218), 3, 24 cents; 
corn (225), 1, 2 cents; onions (227), 5, 15 cents; 
spinach (229), 3,6 cents; succotash (231),4,8 cents; 

tomatoes (233),2,4 cents. Total vegetables. 

Apples (240), 6, 12 cents; oranges (251), 7, 21 cents; 
prunes,stewed (255), 3,12 cents; strawberries (256), 
3,25 cents; preserves(257), 16,64 cents; sauces(258), 

3,12 cents. Total fruits, etc. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259),26,Ob. 

Lemonade (267),2,4 cents. 

Combination breakfasts (270), 5, 50 cents; lunches 
(273), 12, 81.20; dinners (276), 1, 12 cents. Total 
combination meals. 

Total food. 

Average for three periods. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Available 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

energy. 

Cents. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

0.8 

1.5 

48 

1.3 

44 

4.0 

21.0 

675 

17.9 

614 

1.3 

2.0 

113 

1.7 

105 

3.4 

2.6 

83 

2.2 

76 

7.0 

1.2 

205 

1.0 

iso 



44 


43 

9 


9 


9 

8.7 

16.6 

592 

15.3 

545 

43.0 

99.3 

2,845 

92.2 

2,602 

43.3 

104.9 

2,969 

97.1 

2,712 


a Order for one-half the usual amount. 


b.See footnote r to Table 1. 


The amounts of digestible protein and available energy per diem for 
all three periods averaged 97.1 grams protein and 2,712 calories, or 
practically the quantities called for by the commonly accepted standard 
for a man of sedentary occupation. In this study 07 per cent of the 
digestible protein came from animal sources. 

The average cost of the ration was 43.3 cents per day. Of this about 
10 per cent was expended for fruits, yielding only 1 per cent of the 
total protein and 4.5 per cent of the total energy, whereas the sum 
expended for breads, also 10 per cent of the total, supplied about 20 
per cent of the total protein and energy. It is not to be inferred that 
fruit should not be used; the purpose of the above comparison is sim¬ 
ply to emphasize the economy of minimizing as far as possible the 
expenditure for foods that contain little nourishment per money unit 
without destroying the palatability of the ration. On foods relatively 
rich in protein (meats, eggs, and dairy products) Subject E spent from 
30 to 00 per cent more than the average of the 10 men studied, which 
accounts for the relatively high proportion of protein and energy 
derived from animal foods. The expenditure for vegetable foods is 
of course correspondingly low; thus his expenditure for cereals was 
onlv 20 per cent, that for desserts 50 per cent, breads 70 per cent 









































32 


ami for vegetables 80 per cent, of the average amounts s|H*nt by the 
ten subjects for such materials. It is to Ik* noticed that he used consid¬ 
erable sugar (for which no charge is made) and got along practically 
without leverages (tea, coffee, and cocoa), thereby effecting a consid¬ 
erable saving. As regards dairy products, the quantity of protein 
bought for 1 cent is about 35 per cent higher than the average for the 
ten men, and that of energy al>out equal to the average. 

At the end of the investigation Subject E had gained 3.7 pounds in 
weight and showed a corresponding slight increase in his anthropo- 
inetric measurements. No change in his general physical condition 
was noted. 

In the examinations at the end of the academic year he passed in 
all his studies with an average grade a little Ixdow B, a very credit¬ 
able performance considering the fact that he carried seven courses. 

In general, it may be said that Subject E accomplished a satisfac¬ 
tory year's work, chiefly intellectual in nature, on a diet which aver¬ 
aged for the three test periods almost exactly the amounts of protein 
and energy required by a commonly accepted standard for a man of 
sedentary occupation, and maintained his general health and physical 
condition. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 406. 

Subject F was 25 years old, 5 feet 3.8 inches in height, and weighed 
120.2 pounds. He was a small man but tolerably well proportioned. 
Like the majority of the men included in this investigation he was in 
fair physical condition. His daily programme differs from most of 
the others in that he spent rather less time on college work and slept 
longer, devoting 7 to 7£ hours daily to college duties and 8 to 84 hours 
to sleep. He did no outside work. During the fall and winter periods 
he walked or took gymnasium exercises 30 minutes to 1 hour daily. 
During the three weeks covered by the spring period he walked or 
played handball three-fourths to 14 hours per day for seven days. 

Subject F was a second-year student in the graduate school, and car¬ 
ried the equivalent of four full courses about equally divided between 
the classical languages and philology. 






33 


Table 8. Kind* of food , number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 406. 

SUBJECT F. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses, see p. 11.] 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, 3 weeks, November SO to December 20. 

Beef croquettes (18), 2, 20 cents; beef hash (20), 1, 7 
cents; roast turkey and sauce (54), 2, 30 cents. 

Total meats. 

Pur6e of peas (58), 1, 3 cents; soup (59), 1, 3 cents. 

Total soups, etc. 

Egg omelet (81), 2, 20 cents. 

Butter (87), 57, 57 cents; cheese, sage (91), 1, 1 cent; 
milk, glass (95), 1, 2 cents; milk, bowl (94), 1, 4 
cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 1, 1 cent. Total 

dairy products. 

Rice (106), 1, 4 cents. 

Bread, white (113), 60,60 cents; bread, Graham (116), 
70, 70 cents; crackers for soup (152), 2, 2 cents; 
macaroni (155), 1, 7 cents. Total bread, crackers, 

etc. 

Cookies (161), 4, 4 cents; gingerbread (168), 4.4 cents; 
cake (158), 13, 13 cents: pie (172), 1,5 cents; tarts 
(181), 2, 4 cents; puddings (175), 2, 7 cents. Total 

desserts, etc. 

Beans, baked (189), 3, 12 cents; sweet potatoes (216), 
4, 8 cents; turnips (235), 1, 3 cents. Total vegeta¬ 
bles. 

Bananas (245), 3, 6 cents; preserves, pineapple(257), 

1, 4 cents. Total fruits, etc. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 132, On. 

Coffee (263), 21, 63 cents; cocoa (262), 27, 81 cents. 

Total beverages. 

Combination lunches(271), 8, 80 cents; dinners(274), 
10, $1.20. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 

Period 2, S weeks, February 19 to March 11. 

Eeefsteak (11), 1. 10 cents; pork, fried ham (45), 1, 

10 cents. Total meats, etc. 

Pur£e of peas (58), 1, 3 cents. 

Butter (88), 15, 15 cents; cheese (90), 3, Scents; milk, 
glass (95), 17, 34 cents; milk, bowl (94), 4,16cents. 

Total dairy products.. 

Bread, white (114),32,32cents; bread, Graham (117), 
32, 32 cents; bread, corn (120), 15, 15 cents; bis¬ 
cuits (126), 3, 3 cents; rolls (132), 14, 14 cents; 
craekers (153), 1. 1 cent; crackers, Graham (149), 

1, 3cents. Total bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake (159), 25, 25 cents; cookies (162), 11, 11 cents; 

tarts, damson (181), 4, Scents. Total desserts,etc. 
Potatoes, baked (200), 1, 2 cents; sweet potatoes 
(217), 2, 4 cents; onions, raw (226), 1,3cents. Total 

vegetables. 

Figs, dried (249),2, Scents. 

Sugar teaspoonfuls(259), 144, 0o. 

Cereal coffee (264), 1, 3 cents; cocoa (262), 29, 87 
cents; coffee (263), 8, 24 cents. Total beverages ... 
Combination breakfasts (269), 17, $1.70; lunches 
(272)', 12, $1.20; dinners (275), 7, 84 cents. Total 
combination meals. 

Total food. 

Period 3, 3 weeks, May 8 to May 28. 

Beef, Hamburg steak (13), 1, 10 cents; pork, bacon 

(with eggs) (41), 1, 4 cents. Total meats, etc. 

Eggs (with bacon), (80), 1, 6 cents; egg omelet (83). 

1, 8 cents. Total eggs, etc. 

Butter (89), 19, 19 cents; cream (for strawberries) 
(93), 1, On; milk, bowl (94). 2, 8 cents; milk, glass 
(95), 12, 24 cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 1, 1 
cent. Total dairy products. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

2.7 

13.1 

128 

12.7 

Ill 

.3 

.6 

13 

.6 

11 

.9 

1.9 

36 

1.8 

32 

3.1 

1.6 

285 

1.6 

265 

.2 

.2 

8 

.2 

7 

6.6 

37.9 

1,208 

32.2 

1,099 

1.8 

4.1 

260 

3.5 

232 

1.1 

3.6 

125 

3.0 

114 

.5 

.2 

23 

.2 

20 



223 


219 

6.9 

4.1 

105 

4.0 

103 

9.5 

25.3 

712 

23.3 

655 

33.6 

92.6 

3,116 

83.1 

2,868 

1.0 

2.6 

33 

2.5 

29 

.1 

.4 

9 

.4 

8 

3.2 

8.5 

247 

8.2 

230 

4.8 

24.9 

823 

21.2 

749 

2.1 

5.1 

322 

4.3 

299 

.4 

.7 

46 

.6 

42 

.4 

.3 

27 

.3 

24 



244 


239 

5.4 

2.8 

79 

2.7 

77 

17.8 

48.5 

1,444 

44.6 

1,328 

35.2 

93.8 

3,274 

84.8 

3.025 

.7 

2.1 

26 

2.0 

23 

.7 

1.4 

28 

1.4 

25 

2.5 

5.7 

208 

5.5 

193 


/ 


a See footnote r to Table 1. 


































































Tahi.k 8 . — Kind* of ftnnl, numher of orders, and cost of each hind, and average rost and 
a moulds of protein and energy of dietary study Xo. 400 — Continued. 

8UBJ KCT F— Continued. 


protein. ami energy <»f <Ully food. 


Kind* of food, number of order*, ami cost of each 

kind. 


Period S, S wok*. May S to May M— Continued. 


Bread. w hite (lift) 49. 49wntt; bread.Graham (118). 
36, 36 cents; bread. corn (121), 6. 0 cents; rolls 
(138), 1. 1 cent; scones (142). 8. Scents; grlddle- 
cakt*a(146), 1, 4cents. Total bread, crackers, etc.. 
Cakes (100).Si.S7cents; cookies! 168),S.5cents; pies 
(174), 2, 8 cents; pudding (177), 4, 16 cents; short¬ 
cake (strawberries only) (170), 2, 11 cents; short¬ 
cake (crust only) (180), 2. 0«*; tarts, raspberry 
(1*1). 2. 4 cents; ice cream (1H4), 2,14 cents; sher¬ 
bet (is*) 1,6 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

l*otatoes, lyonnaise (212), 1,2 cents.j 

Bananas (244), 6,12 cents; strawberries (with cream) 
(256), 1, 7 cents; preserves, raspU*rry (257b 1, 4 
cents; preserves.straw Iwrrv (257),8,12cents. Total 
fruit*. 


Honey (2611,1,4 cents; sirup (260), 1.2 cents; sugar. 

tea^iMMiufuls (250), 100,0.« Total sugar*. etc. 

Cereal coffee (264), 24 , 72 cents; cnnm (262), 13, 89 
cents; coffee (263), 1, 3 cents; lemonade (267), 2, 

4 cents. Total beverages. 

Combination breakfasts (270). 6, 60 cents; lunches 
(273), 15. 11.60; dinners (276), 5, 60 cents. Total 
combination meals. 


Total food 


Average for three peril sis 


Total. 

Digexti- 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

CoHt. 

Protein. 

Knergy. 

( V lit*. 

Oram*. 

t Yi/orir*. 

(train*. 

t 'alorie*. 

4.7 

27.1 

867 

23.0 

789 

5.0 

8.2 

499 

7.0 

464 

.1 

.2 

12 

.2 

11 

1.7 

.4 

59 

.3 

52 

.3 


191 


187 

5,6 

1.7 

60 

1.6 

59 

12.8 

24.8 

844 

22.8 

776 

34.1 

71.6 

2, 794 

63.8 

2,579 

34.3 

86.0 

3,061 

77.2 

2,824 


a See footnote r to Table 1 


It will be seen that the above dietary provided a simple and tolera¬ 
bly economical ration, with 45 per cent of the total digestible protein 
and 29 per cent of the available energy furnished b} r animal foods. 
Ordinarily in student dietaries studied in the United States, the pro¬ 
tein from animal sources, as before stated, has been found to amount 
to <K) per cent and the energy from the same source to 48 per cent 
of the total. The most noticeable item of expense was for combina¬ 
tion meals, which amounted to nearly 40 per cent of the cost of the 
day's food, or more than twice the average percentage expenditure 
for the ton men included in this investigation. Since combination 
meals were relatively cheap, this was a wise selection. The liberal 
use of combination meals and the fact that Subject F secured (owing 
to the almost exclusive use of white and Graham bread), for 1 
cent spent on breadstuffs, about 19 per cent more protein and 15 
per cent more energy than the average computed for the ten men, 
are the chief reasons for the economy of the ration. He ate no cereal 
breakfast foods, and only about 25 per cent as much meat and veg¬ 
etables as the average. On the other hand, he was fully up to the 
average on breads, while on desserts he was 25 per cent, and on bev¬ 
erages 2(M) percent al>ove the average. The sums expended for the 
last two articles are the only ones which could not be defended on the 

































35 


ground ot economy under the circumstances. It does not necessarily 
follow that Subject F\s ration would have been better adapted to his 
needs if he had used the money spent on beverages and desserts for 
the purchase of cheaper foods, because it might well be that such a 
change would have lessened the very essential element of palatability. 
It should be borne in mind that all the alterations suggested in favor 
of greater economy (i. e., increased amounts of nutrients for the same 
cost) in this case and the others are based on the assumption that 
within wide limits one food is as acceptable as another to a hungry 
man, and that the men studied were trying to nourish themselves 
satisfactorily on a small sum. 

As has been noted with a number of the men, Subject F\s ration was 
noticeably lower for period 3 than for the other periods. Thus in 
periods 1 and 2 the average was 83.1) grams of digestible protein and 
2,946 calories of available energy, but in period 3 it was only 63.8grams 
and 2,577 calories. This falling off was due chiefly to the decline in the 
nutritive value of the combination meals (see p. 22) and the increased 
use of fruits and desserts without a proportionate increase in the total 
cost of the ration. For the three periods the ration averaged 77.2 
grams of digestible protein and 2,824 calories available energy per 
diem, or 84 and 104 per cent of the amounts called for by the com¬ 
monly accepted standard for a man of sedentary occupation. We have 
here another instance of very low protein consumption coupled with a 
rather plentiful energy supply. So far as we may judge from physical 
examination and measurements at the end of the test period, Subject 
F held his own with the demands, both intellectual and physical, of his 
college life. In fact he showed the slight gain in weight (in this cast' 
1.8 pounds) and in anthropometric measurements that was noticed with 
the majority of the men, which seems to indicate, at least in the case 
of a man whose normal body growth was completed, that there was 
no physical deterioration. 11 is scholarship was very high, if we may 
judge from the fact that lie passed his examinations with the grade of 
A. the highest mark that is given at Harvard University. 


DIETARY STUDY NO. 407. 

Subject G was 22 years old, 5 feet 8.5 inches in height, and weighed 
143.3 pounds, and, unlike all the subjects before considered, showed 
a remarkably close approximation to the average for his age both in 
stature and in physical measurements, being classed as fairly well 
developed and nourished. He was a senior in the college and carried 
five courses, none of which was generally considered to be very diffi¬ 
cult. Of all the men, his period for sleep was the shortest, being 
but 64 to 6f hours. lie spent 9 to hours daily on his college 
work, but had no outside duties to perform. It was only during 


80 


period 1 that he took any physic al exercine, and then it was limited 
to walking for 1 to 2 hours or skating for 4f> minutes per day on 2 or 
8 days. 

Tahlk 9. — Kind* of food , number of order*, and cart of each hind, and average cart and 
amount* of protein and energy of dietary rttuly Xo. 407. 

SUBJECT O. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses see p. 11.] 


Coat, protein, anti energy of daily food. 


Kind* of fotal, number of orders, and coat of each 

kind. 


Period 1, S t« < is, Xor* min r 50 to December to. 


Beefsteak (10), 9, 90 cent*; l>eef. rump steak (14), 5, 
SI; beef. Hamburg steak (13), 1,10cents; beef, roast 
(6), 4, 40cents; beef, frizzled (with eggs) C'-23). 1. 10 
cents; beef, jtotpie (2ft), 1, 10 cents; veal cutlets 
(27), 1,15cents; mutton chops (31) 1,25cents; lamb, 
roast, cold (35), 1, 10 cents; |M>rk, bacon (with 
eggs) (39), 3, 12 cents; pork cutlets (with fried 
apples) (43),2,30cents; turkey, n>a.*t (with sauce) 

(M), 1, 15 cents. Total meats, etc. 

Chowder (57), 3, 9 cents; soup (59), 6. 18 cents; punk* 

of peas (58), 2, ti cents. Total soups, etc. 

Oysters, raw, 1 dozen (68), 1, 10« cents; oyster stew, 
ordinary (70), 2. 20 cents; oyster stew, special (T2). 
1 , 15 cents; smelts, fried (65), 1, 156 cents. Total 

fish, etc. 

Eggs, boiled (77), 2, 16 cents; eggs, fried (78), 7. 56 
cents; eggs (with bacon) (78), 3, 24 cents; omelet 

(81), 1, 10 cents. Total eggs. 

Butter (87), 57, 57 cents; milk, glass (95), 10. 20 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 21, 21 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Oatmeal (103), 21. 84 cents. 

Bread, white (113). 16,16 cents; bread, corn (119) 1, 1 
cent; biscuit (125). 4. 4 cents; rolls (131), 67, 67 
cents; toast, buttered (135), 8.24 cents; buckwheat 
cakes (143), 3, 15 cents; griddlecakes (147), 6, 30 
cents; crackers for soup (152), 11, 11 cents. Total 

bread, cracker*, etc. 

Doughnuts (164). 2. 2 cents; gingerbread (168), 9, 9 
cents; cake (158), 2, 5 cents; ice cream (182), 1, 7 
cents; pies (172), 11, 66cents; coffee jelly (185), 9, 
36 cents; puddings (175), 9, 45 cents. Total des¬ 


serts, etc. 

Peas (198), 1, 3 cents; |*otat<*es, baked (199), 6, 10 
cents; potatoes, fried (207>, 2. 4 cents; potatoes, 
mashed (203), 5, 10 cents; tomatoes, stewed (234), 

3, 9 cents. Total vegetables. 

Urapes (247), 1. 3 cents; apples, fried (with pork cut¬ 
lets) (242), 2, 0<\ Total fruits. 

Sirup (260), 9, 18 cents; sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 

180, 0c. Total sugars, etc. 

Cocoa (262), 5, 15 cents; coffee (263), 23, 69 cents; tea 
(263), 23, 69 cents. Total beverages. 


Total food 


Pt riod t, S tceektt, F/bruary IK to March 6. 

Beef, roast (7), 4, 40 cents; beefsteak (11), 1,10 cents; 
beef, rump steak (14), 2, 40 cents; beef, tenderloin 
(15), 1,50 cents; beef, Hamburg steak (13), 1, 10 
cents; beef, corned (3),2,16cents; pork cutlets(43), 
l,15cents; pork, bacon (with eggs) (40), 3,12 cents; 
fork, ham (with eggs) (48), 1. 12 cents; veal, roast 
(with gravy) (28), 1. 10 cents: gravy (with roast 
veal) (29), 1, Or turkey, n*ast (55), 3. 45cents; veal 
cutlets (27),3 ,45 cents; lamb, roast (33), 1, 10cents. 

Total meats, etc.. 

Chowder (67), 3, 9 eente; mute of p<*aa (68), 1, 3 
cents; soup (60), 8, 24 cents. Total soups, etc. 


Cost. 

Total. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Digesti¬ 
ble pr»>- 
1 .in. 

Avail¬ 

able 

ill.-Cgy. 

cent*. 

Oram*. 

< \iUrriet. 

dram*. 

(\ilorie a. 

17.5 

42.6 

597 

41.2 

619 

1.6 

3.1 

60 

3.0 

52 

2.8 

3.8 

35 

3.2 

80 

5.0 

8.0 

144 

7.8 

128 

4.7 

7.0 

355 

6.8 

330 

4.0 

7.6 

212 

6.5 

193 

8.0 

29.8 

1,089 

25.3 

945 

7.6 

10.2 

587 

8.7 

546 

1.7 

2.4 

109 

2.0 

99 

.1 


13 


11 

.9 


394 


386 

7.3 

3.7 

82 

3.6 

80 

61.2 

117.6 

3,627 

108.1 

3,319 

15.0 

32.6 

485 

31.6 

422 

1.7 

2.7 

48 

2.6 

41 


a Oysters, raw, 15 cents per dozen; 10 cents per half dozen. 
6 Extra charge of 5 cents for Tartare sauce. 
cSee footnote r to Table 1. 














































37 


I able 9. hint Is of fowl, number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 407 —Continued. 

SUBJECT G—Continued. 


Kinds of food,number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 2,3 weeks, February lh to March6 —Continued. 

Cod, fried (62), 2, 22 cents; halibut, fried (63), 2,« 25 
cents; oyster stew (71), 1, 10 cents; oyster stew, 

extra (72), 2, 30 cents. Total fish, etc. 

Eggs, fried (79), K, 64 cents; eggs, scrambled (85), 2, 
20 cents; eggs, fried (with bacon) (79), 3, 24 cents; 
eggs, fried, (with ham), (79), 1, 8 cents. Total 

eggs, etc. 

Butter (88), 56, 56 cents; milk, glass (95) 24, 48 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce, pitchers (96), 25, 25 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Oatmeal (104), 21, 63 cents; rice (107) 4, 12 cents. 

Total breakfast cereals, etc. 

Bread, white (114), 14, 14 cents; bread, com (120), 
21, 21 cents; biscuit (126), 1. 1 cent; rolls (132), 52, 
52 cents; toast, buttered (135), 14, 42 cents; crack¬ 
ers (153), 11, 11 cents; buckwheat cakes (144), 2, 
10 cents; griddleeakes (145), 7, 35 cents. Total 

breads, crackers, etc. 

Cake (159), 3, 6 cents; gingerbread (169), 2, 2 cents; 
pie (173), 7, 35 cents; pudding (176), 2, 8 cents; 
coffee jelly (186), 14, 56 cents; icecream (183), 1, 

7 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Peas (196), 5, 15 cents; potatoes, baked (200), 4 , 8 
cents; potatoes, mashed (204), 8, 16 cents; sweet 
potatoes (217), 1, 2 cents; beets, pickled (219), 1. 

3 cents; tomatoes, stewed (232), 2,n 8 cents. Total 

vegetables, etc. 

Bananas (243), 37, 74 cents; fried apples (with pork 
cutlets) (242), 1, 0;6 oranges (250), 21, 63 cents. 

Total fruits, etc. 

Sirup (260), 9, 18 cents; sugar (259), 177, 0. b Total 

sugars, etc. 

Cocoa (262), 2, 6 cents; coffee (263), 27, 81 cents; gin¬ 
ger ale (266), 1, 5 cents; tea (263), 17, 51 cents. 

Total beverages, etc. 

Combination lunch (272), 1,10cents. 

Total food. 

Period 3, 3 weeks. May 3 to May 28. 

Beef, braised (2), 1, 10 cents; beef, corned (4), 2, 16 
cents; beef, roast (8), 5, 50 cents; beefsteak (12), 4, 
40 cents; beef, rump steak (14), 3, 60 cents; pork, 
bacon (with eggs) (41), 1, 4 cents; pork cutlets (43), 
2, 30pents; pork, ham (with eggs) (48), 2, 24cents; 
turkey, roast and dressing (56), 1, 15 cents. To¬ 
tal meats, etc.. 

Chowder (57), 3, 9 cents; soup (61), 6, 18 cents. To¬ 
tal soups, etc. 

Mackerel, broiled (64), 2, 20 cents. 

Eggs, fried (80), 18, c 54Vents; eggs, scrambled (86), 
7, 56 cents; eggs (with bacon) (80). 1, 6 cents; eggs 

(with ham) (80), 2, 12 cents. Total eggs, etc. 

Butter (89), 52, 52 cents; cream (92). 2, 4 cents; 
cream (with strawberries) (93), 16, 0; b milk, bowl 
(94), 2, 8 cents; milk, glass (95), 49, 98 cents; milk, 
4-ounce pitchers (96), 6, 6 cents. Total dairy pro¬ 
ducts .. 

Oatmeal (105), 2, 6 cents; rice (108), 1, 3 cents; 
shredded wheat (109), 6, <* 12 cents. Total break- 
fnst cereals etc. 

Bread, white’(115), 18, 18 cents; bread, corn (121), 
40, 40 cents; rolls (133), 30, 30 cents; toast, but¬ 
tered (136), 15, 45 cents; griddleeakes (146). 10, 
40 cents; crackers (154), 2, 2 cents. Total bread, 

crackers, etc. 

Cake (160), 6, 9 cents; cookies (163), 2. 2 cents; ice 
cream (184), 8, 60# cents; coffee jelly (187), 8, 32 
cents; sherbet (188), 1, 6 cents. Total desserts. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 
ble pro¬ 
tein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calorics. 

4.1 

9.9 

109 

9.6 

93 

5.5 

9.9 

195 

9.6 

174 

6.1 

12.0 

508 

11.6 

472 

3.6 

5.7 

172 

4.8 

157 

8.9 

30.7 

1,092 

26.1 

994 

5.4 

5.8 

315 

4.9 

293 

2.4 

3.3 

127 

2.7 

11 G 

6.5 

3.6 

269 

3.1 

237 

.9 


388 


380 

6.8 

3.3 

76 

3.2 

75 

.5 

1.5 

47 

1.4 

43 

67. 4 

121.0 

3,831 

111.2 

3,497 

11.9 

33.1 

474 

32.1 

412 

1.3 

2.5 

45 

2.4 

39 

1.0 

3.0 

25 

2.9 

21 

6.1 

20.4 

423 

19.8 

376 

8.1 

18.8 

717 

18.2 

667 

1.0 

1.7 

58 

1.5 

53 

8.3 

30.3 

1,052 

25.8 

957 

5.4 

3.6 

213 

3.1 

198 


than that in Table 1. 


a Includes one special order, with extra charge. 
hSee footnote r to Table 1. 

<• Orders for one-half the usual amount. 

d Includes some kinds of ice cream the price of which was higher 
































































TaHUC D.~ hi mi* of foot I, number of order*, awl ro*t of each hind, and areraije ton! and 
amount* of protein and entry if of dietary ntwiy Xo. 407 —Continued. 

BCHJ KCT <}—Continued. 


Coat, protein, him! energy of daily to**!. 


Kinds of food, iiuiiiIht of orders, and coat of each 

kind. 


/v-ri/af 5, 3 i rrrks. May 8 to May ss —Continued. 

lVaa (197), 6, 10 cent*: potatoes, baked (201), 3, 6 
cents; (totatoes, mashed (20ft), 0, 12 cents; pota¬ 
toes, fried(208). 1,2cents; potatoes, lvonnai.se (212), 
8, Scents; beets, pickled (219), 1. 8 cents; onions, 
raw (226), 2, 6 cents; pickles (239), 3, 3 cents; to¬ 
matoes (2:13), 1, 2 cents. Total vegetables. 

Apples, fried (with jn>rk cutlets) (242), 2, 0:« ba¬ 
nanas (244), 13, 26 cents: oranges (251), 8, 24 cents; 

strawberries (256), 16. 31.36. Total fruits, etc. 

Sirup (260), 10, 20 cents; sugar (259), ftft, 0.a Total 

mean, etc. 

Coffee (263), 6, 15 cents; tea (263), 16, 48 cents. To¬ 
tal beverages. 

Total food. 

Average of the three periods. 


Cost. 

Total. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Digesti¬ 
ble t»ro- 
tain. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

071 1*. 

Graum. 

Calorie*. 

dram*. 

('alorir*. 

2.4 

3.3 

138 

2.7 

126 

8.9 

2.3 

141 

2.0 

124 

1.0 


192 


IKK 

3.0 

1.5 

31 

1.5 

30 

58.4 

120.5 

3,509 

US. 0 

3,191 

62.3 

119.7 

3,656 

110.4 

3,336 


<• Set* footnote r to Table 1. 


The diet of Subject G is especially interesting, as this is the only 
instance among the ten men studied in which the cost of hoard was 
apparently of little moment. An increased variety and quantity of 
food are noticeable. Thus, for the three periods the daily ration cost 
on sm average <>2.3 rents and contained 110.4 grains of digestible pro¬ 
tein and 3,330 calories of available energy, quantities which approach 
closelv to the standard for men with moderatelv active muscular work, 
i. e., 115 grams of digestible protein and 3,400 calories of available 
energy (see Table 14, p. 54). The quantity of protein furnished by 
animal foods (62.5 per cent of the total amount mentioned above) was 
higher than the average for the ten men studied. The fact that no com¬ 
bination meals were used is noticeable, and explains the liberal use of 
many of the other food articles, such as meats, eggs, soups, and desserts. 
The nutrients in the ration might have been increased without alter¬ 
ing the cost by spending less on desserts, beverages, and fruits, of 
which about 25 per cent more than the average were consumed, and 
purchasing proportionately more of the cheaper foods, but as economy 
seems to have been no object there is really little reason to suggest 
possible changes. The effect of the selection of a variety of dishes 
within anv given food class in lowering the economy of that class is 
well illustrated in this dietary. 

For example, every cent's worth of meats, fish, and eggs procured 
supplied only about SO per cent of the protein and 85 per cent of the 
energy obtained on an average with less variety by the ten men studied. 
For breads the figures are 75 and 80 per cent, respectively, and for 
vegetables 03 and 00 per cent, respectively. A glance at the table 
shows the relatively great variety in the above classes of food. 








































39 


At the end of tlie investigation the subject had gained <5.2 pounds in 
weight and showed a corresponding slight increase in anthropometric 
measurements. No change in his general physical condition could he 
noted. lie passed his examinations creditably with a grade between 
B and C. 

In this case there can belittle doubt that the supply of nutrients was 
actually sufficient to meet the subject’s demands, inasmuch as he gained 
in weight and showed no sign of physical deterioration. The ration 
eaten by Subject G, although very liberal in comparison with that of 
the other men included in this investigation, should not be regarded 
as excessively large, and the average student who boarded at Banda 11 
Hall and was not forced to economize would probably spend fully 
as much on his food and secure as much protein and energy as did 
this subject. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 408. 


Subject II was 27 years old, 5 feet 10.5 inches in height, and weighed 
128.3 pounds. For one of his height he was very slight, but examina¬ 
tion showed that he was in fair physical condition and fairly well 
nourished. 

He was a senior in the college and carried live courses, none of which 
was commonly regarded as especially difficult. He slept about 8 hours 
and devoted 7 to 8£ hours daily to his studies. For exercise he walked 
or rode a bicycle 30 minutes to 1 hour per day for seven days during 
period 1. In the winter period (period 2) he walked or exercised in 
the gymnasium 1 hour daily for 10 days, and in period 3 he rode a 
bicycle 30 minutes to 2 hours daily on 0 days. In addition to college 
work he served as a waiter at Randall Hall for £ to H hours daily for 
10 to 13 days during each period. His time was quite fully occupied, 
but his physical work was not of a very arduous nature. 


Table 10 .—Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each bind, and average cost <nid 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 408. 

SUBJECT II. 


[For explanation of numbers 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1,3 weeks, Xoremhcr .10 to December 20. 

Beefsteak (10). 3, 30 cents; beef, roast (6), 3,30 cents: 
beef croquettes (18), 1, 10 cents; lamb, roast, with 
sauce (3*2). 1. 10 cents; nork, sausage (50), 1,8 cents; 
turkey, roast (with dressing) (64), 1, 16 cents. 

Totalmcats, etc. 

Soup (69), 16, 46 cents. 

Whftefish, laiked (66), 1,10 cents. 

Egg omelet (81), 2, 20 cents. 


in parentheses, see p. 11.] 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 



Total. 


Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Availa¬ 

ble 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

1.9 

2.1 

.5 

.9 

Crams. 

15.0 

3.9 
1.6 

1.9 

Calories. 

178 

61 

11 

36 

Crams. 

14.6 

3.8 
1.6 

1.8 

('a lories. 
1,66 
62 
9 
32 

















40 


Table 10 .—Kindt of food , number of order*, anti ro*l of etu'h kind , and average nn4 and 
amount* of protein and energy of dietary *tudy No. 40& —^Continued. 

SUBJECT H—Continued. 


Kinds of food, nuwber of orders, hiuI cost of each 

kind. 


IVriud 1,3 tcrtks, Xovember 30 to December 20 —Cont'd. 

Butter (87). 28, 28 cents; milk, bowl (hot). (94), 3.15 
cents; milk, glass (95), 3. 6 cents; milk, 4-ounce 

pitchers (96), 38,38eents. Total dairy products. 

Prepared cereal (97), 8, 32 cents; oatmeal (103) 17, 
08 cents; rice (106), 2, 8 cents; shredded wheat 
(109), 8. 32 cents; wheat (112), 3, 12 cents. Total 

breakfast cereals. 

Bread, white (113), 41. 44 cents; bread, corn (119). 
48, 48 cents; rolls (131), 23,23cents; toast, buttered 
(135), 8, 24 cents: griddlecakes (147), 1, 6 cents. 

Total bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake (158), 18, 24 cents; cookies (161), 17, 17 cents; 
gingerbread, (168), 1, 1 cent; pies (172), 4, 20 cents; 
puddings (175),6,a28 cents; coffee Jelly (185), 4,16 

cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Beans. l>aked (189), 7, 28 cents; potatoes, baked 
(199), 12, 24 cents; potatoes, fried (207), 2, 4 cents; 
potatoes, mashed (203), 11, 22 cents; sweet pota¬ 
toes (216), 5, 10 cents; tomatoes, stewed (234), 3, 9 

cents. Total vegetables. 

Bananas (245), 1, 2 cents; grapes (247), 2, 6 cents; 

preserves (257), 6,24 cents. Total fruits. 

Sirup (260), 1, 2 cents; sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 

118, 0.6 Total sugars, etc. 

Coffee (263), 4, 12 cents. 

Total food. 

Fcrio<l f, 3 t reeks, February U, to March 6. 

Beef, roast (7), 1,10cents; beef, corned (3), 2,16 cents; 
beefsteak (11). 1, 10 cents; beef croquettes (19), 1, 
10 cents; beef hash (21), 1,7 cents; lamb, roast (33), 
4, 40 cents; chicken wings (with U>ast), (52), 1, 10 

cents. Total meats, etc. 

Soup (60). 7. 21 cents. 

Butter (88), 47, 47 cents; milk, glass (96), 2, 4 cents; 
milk, bowl (hot), (94), 1, 5 cents; milk, 4-ounce 
pitchers (96), 31, 31 cents Total dairy products... 
Oatmeal (194). 20, 60 cents; rice (107), 1, 3 cents; 
shredded wheat (109), 3,12 cents; wheat (110), 6, 

LB ivlil.v. Total breaking rernds etc. 

Bread, white (114), 16,16 cents; bread, corn (120), 50, 
50 cents; biscuit (126), 1. 1 cent: rolls (132), 53, 63 
cents; toast (with chicken wings) (139), 1, 0;& 
toast, buttered (135), 8, 24 cents; toast, creamed 
(138), 1, 7 cents; griddlecakes (145), 2. 10 cents; 
crackers (153), 4, 4 cents. Total bread, crackers, 

etc. 

Cookies (162), 11, 11 cents; gingerbread (169), 7, 7 
cents; coffee jelly (186), 13. 52 cents; cake (169), 25, 
30 cents; pie (173), 4. 20 cents; pudding (176), 5, 20 
cents; tarts (181), 1, 2 cents; fritters, apple (171), 1, 

7 cents. Total desserts. 

Beans, baked (190), 1, 4 cents; peas (196), 1, 3 cents; 
potatoes, baked (200), 6,12 cents; potatoes, mashed 
(204), 10, 20 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 2, 4 cents; 
tomatoes, stewed (232), 4,12 cents; turnips, mashed 
(235), l, 3 cents; pickles, sweet (237), 2, 10 cents. 

Total vegetables. 

Apples, Imked (241), 1, 4 cents; bananas (243), 6. 12 
cents; figs, dried (249), 4, 16 cents; oranges (250), 
9. 27 cents; preserves, damson (257), 6, 20 cents. 

Total fruits. 

.Sugar (259), 95, 0; *> simp (260), 2, 4 cents. Total 

sugars, etc. 

Cocoa (262), 1. 3 cents. 

Combination lunch (272), 1, 10 cents. 

Total food. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Availa- 

ble 

energy. 

Cost 

Protein. 

Knergy. 

Cents. 

tirams. 

( alorirs. 

tirams. 

('alorirs. 

4.1 

9.2 

324 

8.9 

301 

7.2 

12.5 

405 

10.6 

369 

6.9 

27.9 

958 

23.7 

8 Ti 






5.0 

8.6 

496 

7.3 

461 

4.6 

11.6 

401 

9.6 

365 

1.5 

.2 

58 

.2 

51 

. l 


210 


206 

.6 

.3 

6 

.3 

6 

38.4 

92.6 

3,144 

82. 3 

2,879 

4.9 

15.0 

171 

14.5 

149 

1.0 

1.3 

18 

1.3 

16 

4.1 

6.7 

352 

6.5 

327 

4.4 

7.1 

223 

6.0 

203 

7.9 

30.1 

1,065 

25.6 

969 

7.1 

10.8 

601 

9.2 

559 

3.2 

4.8 

190 

4.0 

173 

3.8 

1.8 

164 

1.5 

144 

.2 


18() 


176 

.1 

.1 

3 

.1 

3 

.5 

1.6 

47 

1.4 

43 

37.2 

79.2 

3,014 

70.1 

2, 762 


a Includes one order at 3 cents. 


5 See footnote r to Table 1. 





























































41 


1 able 10 .—Kinds of food, number of orders , and cost of each kind , and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study No. 408 —Continued. 

SUBJECT H—Continued. 



Cost, protein, and energy of daily 

food. 

Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 
kind. 

Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 


Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Period 3, 3 weeks, May 3 to May ts. 






Beef, roast (8), 2,20cents; beef,corned (4),2,16 cents; 
beefsteak (12), 3, 30 cents; beef, frizzled with eggs 
(24), 1, 9cents; lamb, roast (34 1 ,2, 20cents; chicken 
wings (with toast) (53), 1, 10 cents. Total meats. 

Cents. 

5.0 

6 

Grams. 

13.0 

1.2 

1 9 

Calories. 

149 

17 

24 

Grams. 

w 

< alories. 

i vm 

Soups (61), 4, 12 cents. 

1.2 

1.8 

5 1 

1 iX/ 

15 

21 

Kggs, dropped (77), 6,« 18 cents. 

. 8 

Butter (89), 43, 43 cents; cream (with strawberries) 
(93), 1, 0 \l> milk, glass (95), 5, 10 cents; milk, 
4-ounce pitchers (96), 20, 20 cents. Total dairy 
products. 

3 5 

5 3 

322 

299 

207 

822 

627 

Oatmeal (105),16,48cents; shredded wheat (109), 11,« 
22 cents; wheat (111), 3, 9 cents. Total breakfast 
cereals. 

3 8 

7 3 

228 

6.2 

22 4 

Bread, white (115),22, 22 cents; bread,corn (121),49, 
49 cents; biscuit (127), 1, 1 cent; rolls (133), 45, 45 
cents; toast, buttered (136), 2, 6 cents; toast (with 
chicken wings) (139), 1, O.b Total bread, crack¬ 
ers, etc. 

5.9 

26.3 

903 

Cake (160), 16, 16 cents; cookies (163), 9, 9 cents; 
doughnuts (166), 1, 1 cent; gingerbread (170), 3, 3 
cents; pie (174), 14,c 57 cents; puddings (177), 4, 16 
cents; coffee jelly (187), 7,28 cents; ice cream (184), 
2,14 cents; sherbet (188), 1,6 cents. Total desserts, 
etc. 

7.1 

10.9 


9.3 

Beans, baked (191), 1, 4 cents; beans, Lima (194), 2, 

4 cents; peas (197),2,4 cents; potatoes, baked (201), 
8 , 16 cents; potatoes, mashed (205), 9, 18 cents; po¬ 
tatoes, stewed (206), 1, 2 cents; succotash (231), 4, 
Scents; tomatoes, stewed (233),5,10cents; turnips 
(235), 1,2cents; potato salad (215), 1,5cents; corn 
(225), 1, 2 cents. Total vegetables. 

3.6 

5.9 

197 

4.9 

179 

Bananas (244), 3, 6 cents; oranges (251), 2, 6 cents; 
strawberries (with cream) (256), 1, 7 cents; pre¬ 
serves (257), 8, 32 cents; sauces (258), 3, 12 cents. 
Total fruits. 

3.0 

.6 

97 

.5 

85 

Sugar (259), 130, 0 b . 

220 


216 

Coffee (263), 3, 9 cents; lemonade (267), 21, 42 cents; 
tea f 263) 3 9 cents. Total beverages.. 

2.8 

. 4 

99 

. 4 

97 

Combination lunches (273), 3, 30 cents. 

1.4 

2. 4 

97 

2.2 

89 



Total food. 

37.5 

75.2 

3,027 

66.6 

2,787 


Average of the three periods. 

37. 7 

82.3 

3,062 

73.0 

2,809 




<» Orders for one-half the usual amount. 
b See footnote r to Table 1. 
c Includes one order at 6 cents. 


The results of the dietary study show that the food contained on an 
average for the three periods 73 grams of digestible protein and 2,800 
calories of available energy, and cost about 37.7 cents per day. 
Although the cost remained fairly constant, the value of the day's 
ration fell off uniformly toward a minimum in period 3. The diet was 
quite largely vegetarian in character, animal foods furnishing only 
34.5 per cent of the total protein and 18.5 per cent of the total energy 
noted above. Only about 10 per cent of the average number of com¬ 
bination meals was eaten. Meats furnished about the usual propor¬ 
tion of total nutrients, but dairy products furnished only about 80 per 
cent of their usual proportion. 


























































42 


On the* other hand, tin* vegetable foods, as might Ik* inferred, were 
consumed in greater quantities than usual. Thus the expenditure for 
breads was alK>ut 25 per cent, for cereals about 65 per cent, for des¬ 
serts about 150 percent, and for vegetables about 4<> per cent above 
the average. There was a noticeable decline in the amount of protein 
in the diet during the second and third periods, while the price of the 
diet jxu* day remained nearly the same; thus in the three periods, the 
ratio of digestible protein to available energy was 1 gram to 65 calo¬ 
ries, 1 gram to 4o calories, and l grain to 42 calories, respectively. 
Perhaps the chief reasons for this were decrease in the amount of 
protein obtained per money unit expended for meats in period 3, tin* 
use of more butter and cream and less milk in both jx»riods 2 and 3, 
and a general tendency toward a more liberal purchase of the less 
economical foods. 

At the end of the investigation Subject II had gained 4.8 pounds 
and showed the usual slight increase in anthropometric measurements 
and in strength-test figures. Medical examination showed no change 
in his general physical condition. In the examinations at the end of 
the college year he attained an average grade of about B. 

We have, then, in the case of Subject II a student rather older than 
the average of those studied, who performed a creditable year's work 
at college on a diet somewhat vegetarian in nature, which averaged 
for the three test periods 73 grams of digestible protein and 2,809 calo¬ 
ries of available energy, amounts which are respectively 79.5 and 104 
per cent of those called for by the commonly accepted standard for a 
man of sedentary habits, without showing any evidence of physical 
deterioration. In fact, in this instance the gain of nearly 5 pounds is 
ground for believing that he was certainly in equilibrium with his 
environment, especially since he had passed the age of greatest l>odily 
development. 

DIETARY STUDY NO. 409. 

Subject 1 was 16 years old, 5 feet 4.2 inches in height, and weighed 
HOi pounds. He was classed as well developed and well nourished, 
though compared with the average college student of the same age his 
measurements were a little below the normal. He was a freshman in 
the college and took the usual broad foundation studies, carrying, how¬ 
ever, six instead of the customary five courses, which gave him a 
rather full year's work. He slept from 81 to 81 hours and spent from 
71 to 81 hours daily in college work. In addition to this he did cler¬ 
ical work amounting to a total of 36 to 45 hours in the first, 9 to 24 
hours in the second, and 4 to 10 hours in the third period. He took 
very little exercise. Thus, during the three weeks of period 1 he 
walked 4 hours, during period 2 he walked 1 to 2 hours, and during 
period 3 he took an hour's walk on one occasion and on another he 
rode a bicycle for 5 hours. 


43 


Table 1 1 . — Kind# of food , number of orders , and cost of each kind , am/ average cost and 
amounts of protein and energg of dietary study No. 409. 

SUBJECT I. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses, see p. 11.] 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, S weeks, November SO to December 20. 

Soup (59), 5, 15cents. 

Butter (87), 12, 12 cents; milk, bowl (94), 14, 58 cents; 
milk. 4-ounce pitchers (90), 42, 42 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Hominy (100), 9, 30 cents; oatmeal (103), 11,44 cents; 
rice (106), 2, 8 cents; wheat (112), 20, 80 cents. 

Total breakfast cereals, etc. 

Bread, white (113), 8, 8 cents; bread, Graham (110)9, 
9 cents; bread, corn (119), 10, lOcents; biscuit (125), 
5, 6, cents; rolls (131), 44, 44 cents; crackers for soup 

(152), 5, 5 cents. Total bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake (158), 2,2 cents; cookies (101), 3, 3 cents; dough¬ 
nuts (104), 3, 3 cents; gingerbread (108), 6, 0 cents. 

Total desserts, etc. 

Potatoes, mashed (203), 5, 10 cents. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 203, 0«. 

Cocoa (202), 7 , 21 cents. 

Combination dinners (274), 3, 30 cents. 


Total food. 

Period 2, S iveeks, February 14 to March 6. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Beefsteak (11), 1, 10 cents. 

Chowder (57), 1, 3 cents; soup (60), 2, 0 cents. Total 

soups, etc. 

Butter (88), 17,17 cents; milk, bowl (94), 18, 72 cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (90), 22, 22 cents. Total 

dairy products. 

Prepared cereal (98), 1, 4 cents; oatmeal (104), 19, 
67 cents: rice (107), 1, 3 cents; wheat (110), 1, 3 

cents. Total breakfast cereals. 

Bread, white (114), 15, 15 cents; bread, corn (120), 9, 
9 cents; biscuit (126), 2, 2 cents; rolls (132), 89, 89 
cents; gems, Graham (128), 2, 2 cents; crackers 

(153), 3, 3 cents. Total bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake (159), 7, 15 cents; doughnuts (165), 3, 3 cents; 
Eclair (167), 2. 8 cents; pie (173), 8, 40 cents. Total 

desserts, etc. 

Beans, baked (190), 1, 4cents; potatoes, baked (200), 

1, 2 cents; potatoes, mashed (204), 1, 2 cents. To¬ 
tal vegetables. 

Apples (240), 1, 2 cents; bananas (243), 4, 8 cents. 

Total fruits. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 204, 0«. 

Cocoa (262), 21, 63 cents. 

Combination breakfast (269), 1, 10 cents; lunches 
(272), 18, S1.80; dinners (275), 2, 24 cents. Total 
combination meals... 


Total food. 

Period S, S weeks, May 8 to May 28. 


Beef hash (22), 1, 6 cents. 

Butter (89), 23, 23 cents; milk, bowl (94), 19, 76 
cents; milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 21, 21 cents. 

Total dairy products. 

Oatmeal (105), 20, OOcents; rice (108), 1,3 cents. To¬ 
tal breakfast cereals. 

Bread, white (115), 17, 17 cents; bread, corn (121), 1, 

1 cent; biscuit (127), 8, 8 cents; rolls (133), 100, $1; 
macaroni (150), 2, 12cents. Total bread, crackers, 

etc.-. 

Cake (160), 11,14 cents; pie (174), 10,642cents; short¬ 
cake, strawberries only (179), 1, 7 cents; shortcake, 
crust only (180), 1, 0;« sherbet (188), 2, 12 cents. 

Total desserts, etc... 

Beans, baked (191). 1, 4 cents; potatoes, hashed (214), 

1, 2 cents; potatoes, fried (208), 1,2 cents. Total 

vegetables.. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 217, 0«. 

aSee footnote r to Table 1. 
b Includes two orders of pie at 6 cents each 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

Avail¬ 
able en- 




Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

protein. 

ergy. 

Cads. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

Grains. 

Calories. 

0.7 

1.0 

16 

1.0 

14 

5.2 

10.0 

272 

9.7 

253 

8.0 

10.3 

302 

8.8 

329 

4.1 

19.2 

669 * 1 

16.3 

609 

. 7 

1.7 

116 

1.4 

108 

.5 

.9 

38 

. 7 

35 



343 


336 

1.0 

. 7 

19 

.7 

19 

1.7 i 

4.6 

110 

4.2 

101 

21.9 

48.4 

1,945 

42.8 

1,801 

.5 

1.7 

16 

1.7 

14 

.4 

. 7 

12 

.7 

10 

5.3 

14.2 

383 

13.8 

263 

3.2 

5.3 

156 

4.5 

142 

5.7 

25.7 

877 

21.8 

798 

3.1 

4.3 

285 

3.7 

266 

.4 

1.3 

32 

1.1 

29 

.5 

.2 

22 

# 2 

19 



345 


318 

3.0 

2.0 

57 

1.9 

66 

10.2 

31.5 

956 

29.0 

879 

32. 3 

86.9 

3,141 

78.4 

2,813 

.5 

1.5 

22 

1.5 

19 

5.7 

14.6 

427 

14.2 

397 

3.0 

6.7 

189 

5.7 

172 

6.6 

31.4 

1,074 

26.7 

977 

3.5 

5.1 

316 

4.3 

322 

.4 

1.2 

48 

1.0 

! 44 



367 


| 360 
























































































44 


Table 11. — Kind* of food, number of orders, and cost of each kind, and average rn*t and 
amount* of protein and energy of dietary study \o. 409 — Continued. 

SUBJECT I—Continued. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of inch 

kind. 

Coat, protein, and energy at daily food. 

Total. 

I*ik’<**tl 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 
able <-n 
**oty. 

Coat. 

Protein. 

Kneigy. 

lYritxl 5, .1 uvck*, May H to M<iy SH —Continued. 

Cocoa (282) 16, 48cente; lemonade ('267), 9, 18 cents; 
tra (263), 1 3 rents. Total l*everaKe*. 

Cmt*. 

3.3 

8.9 

dram*. 

1.6 

16.7 

t blorics. 
84 

574 

(irmn*. 

1.0 

14.4 

(Uhtrirt. 

8*2 

628 

Combination lunches (278), If*. fl.fiO; dinners (276), 

3 36 rente. Total combination meals. 

Total food. 

31.9 

77.8 

3,131 

69.4 

2,901 

Average of the three periods. 

28.7 

71.0 

2,789 

63.6 

2,606 



The diet of this subject is noteworthy in several respects. During 
the three weeks of period 1 he lived on u ration which cost about 22 
cents per day and supplied the remarkably small total of 42.8 grams 
of digestible protein and 1,804 calories of available energy. He ate 
no meat except that which was served with the combination meals, of 
which there were only three during the entire period. Except for 
butter and milk, which supplied about 25 per cent of the total protein 
and 14 per cent of the total energy, he was practically a vegetarian, 
depending on breads and cereals for about 59 percent of the total pro¬ 
tein and on bread, cereals, and sugar for 70.5 per cent of the total 
energy obtained. Two pages from his book will give an idea of the 
character of the diet which lie selected, though, as will be observed 
from the table above, the total number of combination meals was very 
small. 

Sample menu*, Subject I. 


December 2. 


Breakfast: 

Cracked wheat and milk (with 3 to 4 teaspoonfuls sugar) 
One hot biscuit (al»out 57 grams). 


Cost, 

rente. 

. 5 

. 1 


Total. q 

Lunch: 

Boiled rice and milk (with 3 to 4 teaspoonfuls sugar). 5 

Corn bread (about 43 grams). 1 

Total. 6 

Dinner: 


Combination dinner, which consisted of a plate of soup, roast 
turkey and dressing, a small saucer of mashed tomatoes, a 
saucer of stewed corn (about two teaspoonfuls), a roll, a small 
pat of butter (11 grams), a cup of cocoa, and a dish of pud¬ 


ding (150 grams).... 16 

Total cost for the day. 28 













































45 


December 17. 

Cost, 

Breakfast: cents. 

Cracked wheat and milk (with 3 to 4 teaspoonfuls sugar). 5 

Two biscuits. 2 

I*at of butter. 1 


Total... 8 


Dinner: 

Boiled hominy and milk (with 3 to 4 teaspoonfuls sugar). 5 

Four slices bread. 2 

Pat of butter. 1 


Total. 8 


Supper: 

Bowl of milk (about 12 fluid ounces). 4 

Two rolls (48 grams each).!. 2 


Total. 6 


Total cost for the day 


Subject I apparently found that he did not get enough to eat in this 
manner for 22 cents si day, and accordingly we find hint spending more 
at the time covered by the second and third periods. On an average 
his daily ration then cost about 32 cents and furnished 73.9 grams of 
digestible protein and 2,857 calories of available energy. During these 
periods animal foods furnished 43.5 per cent of the total protein and 
26 per cent of the total energy noted, a ratio which was not materially 
different from that shown in the dietaries of several of the other sub¬ 
jects. The diet, sis in many other cases, could have been improved sis 
regards economy b} T spending lesson desserts and beverages and more 
on some other foods. As the tables stand, the ration for periods 2 and 
3 furnishes more than the aversige amounts of nutrients for 1 cent, sis 
compared with the other studies, and this is due largely to the fact that 
the ration was simple sis regards the classes of foods selected. It is 
further true that Subject I chose to eat only a few simple foods of esich 
class rather than a considerable variety, and this explains the fact 
that in every important food class he obtained for 1 cent amounts of 
nutrients never below and often a little above the corresponding aver¬ 
age amounts for the ten men. 


At the end of the investigation he weighed 127 pounds, having made 
the surprising gain of 16.8 pounds during the experimental period, and 
his anthropometric measurements, as might be expected, also show a 
marked increase. No change, except an increase in adipose tissue, 
etc., was found in his physical condition and general health, but it 
seems certain that there was no deterioration. He passed the final 























examinations in all his studies with an average grade of B. W hen we 
remember that he carried six courses and did outside clerical work in 
addition to his college work, this is a very creditable showing. 

It appears, then, that this subject, 16 years old at the beginning of 
the investigation, performed his college work with credit and gained 
steadily in bodily weight throughout the year without tin* slightest 
sign of deterioration in his general physical condition on a diet which 
furnished on an average 63.5 grams of digestible protein and 2,506 
calories of available energy per diem. 


DIETARY STUDY NO. 410. 

Subject K was 22 years old, 5 feet 6.8 inches in height, and weighed 
151 pounds. He alone of all the men studied seemed thoroughly 
strong and robust physically, and such a man as one would consider 
tit to take an active part in college athletics. His anthropometric 
measurements showed him to be generally above the normal for men 
of his age and he was classed on examination as well developed and 
well nourished. 

He was a senior in the college and devoted himself to the study of 
Greek and classical philology, carrying four and one-half advanced 
courses. On an average lie spent daily 10 to 11^ hours on college 
work, including lectures, reading, etc., and slept 6$ to 7 hours. His 
only physical exercise for the entire three periods was a walk of an 
hour, but during the first period he served as a waiter at Randall Hall 
14 to 3 hours daily for 16 days, during the second period 1 to *1 hours 
daily for 17 days, and during the third period 2i to 44 hours daily 
for the entire three weeks. From this it appears that his working 
day covered 12 to 14 hours. 

Table 12.— Kiwi* of fowl, number of orders, rout of each kiwi , and average cost and 

amounts of protein and energy of dietary study 4 JO. 

SUBJECT K. 

[For explanation of numbers in parentheses, see p. 11.] 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 

Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Total. 


Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 


Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Period 1, 3 weeks, November 30 to December to. 

Beefsteak (10), 1,10 cents. 

Cents. 

0.5 

Grams. 

1.4 

Calories. 

14 

Grams. 

1.4 

(\ilttries. 
12 

Chowder (57), 2,6 cents; puree of peas (58), 1,3 cents; 

soup (58), 2, 6 cents. Total soups, etc. 

Milk.bowl (90,3,12cents; milk,glass(96), 1,2cents; 
milk, 4-ounce pitchers (96), 2,2cents. Total dairy 
products.. 

.7 

1.6 

29 

1.5 

25 

.7 

2.4 

52 

2.3 

48 

iTepared cereal (97). 1, 4 cents; hominy (100), 8, 32 
cents; oatmeal (108), 2, 8 cents; wheat (112), 1, 4 
cents. Total breakfast cereals, etc. 

2.3 

2.7 

107 

2.3 

100 

Bread, white (113), 13,13 cents; bread, Graham (116), 
11.41 cents; bread.com (119). 4,4 cents; rolls (131), 
1. 1 cent; crackers (152), 2, 2 cents. Total breads, 
crackers, etc... 

2.9 

16.8 

Mfi 

14.8 

497 


























47 


F able 12.— kind's of food y number of orders, cost of each kind, and average cost and 
amounts of protein and energy of dietary study 410 —Continued. 

SUBJECT K—Continued. 


Cost, protein, and energy of daily food. 


Kinds of food, number of orders, and cost of each 

kind. 


Period 1, 3 week*, November 30 to December 20 —Cont’d. 

Doughnuts (164), 1, 1 cent; gingerbread (168), 1, 1 
cent; pie (172), 1, 5 cents; ice cream (182), 1, 7 

cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Beans, baked (189), 2, 8 cents; potatoes, baked (199), 
26,52cents; sweet potatoes (216), 31,62cents. Total 

vegetables. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 19, Oa. 

Combination dinner (274), 1, 12 cents. 

Total food.. 

Period 2, 3 weeks, February 74 to March 6. 

Beefsteak (11), 11, SI. 10. 

Pur6e of peas (58), 3, 9 cents; soup (60), 1, 3 cents. 

Total soups, etc. 

Eggs, boiled (77), 7,6 28 cents; eggs,fried (79), 4, 32 

cents. Total eggs. 

Butter (88), 7, 7 cents; milk, glass (95), 10, 20 cents; 

milk, bowl (94), 1, 4 cents. Total dairy products.. 
Prepared cereals (98), 2, 8 cents; hominy (101), 6, 
18 cents; oatmeal (104), 9, 27 cents; rice (107), 3, 
9 cents; wheat (110), 9, 27 cents. Total breakfast 

cereals, etc. 

Bread, white (114), 13,13cents; bread, Graham (117), 
71, 71 cents; bread, corn (120), 36, 36 cents. Total 

bread, crackers, etc. 

Cake, fruit (159), 28, 28cents; cookies (162), 2, 2 cents; 

gingerbread (169), 3, 3 cents. Total desserts, etc.. 
Beans, baked (190), 1, 4 cents; potatoes, baked (200), 
24, 48 cents; sweet potatoes (217), 13, 26 cents. 

Total vegetables. 

Bananas (243), 3, 6 cents. 

Sugar, teaspoonftils (259), 61, 0«. 

Coffee (263), 1, 3 cents. 

Total food. 

Period 3, 3 weeks, May 8 to May 28. 

Beefsteak (12), 3, 30 cents. 

Soups (61), 2, 6 cents. 

Eggs, fried (80), 5, 30 cents. 

Butter (89), 20, 20 cents; milk, bowl (94), 1, 4 cents. 

Total dairy products. 

Prepared cereal (99), 7, 28 cents; hominy (102), 7, 
21 cents; oatmeal (105), 10, 30 cents, wheat (111),6, 

18 cents. Total breakfast cereals. 

Bread, white (115), 18,18 cents; bread, Graham (118), 

73, 73 cents. Total bread. 

Cake (160), 2, 2 cents; cookies (163), 1, 1 cent; pie 

(174), 8, 32 cents. Total desserts, etc. 

Potatoes, baked (201), 28, 56 cents; potatoes, boiled 

(202), 13, 26 cents. Total vegetables. 

Bananas (244), 16, 32 cents. 

Sugar, teaspoonfuls (259), 49, 0«. 

Total food. 

Average for the three periods. 


Total. 

Digesti¬ 

ble 

protein. 

Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

Cost. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Cents. 

Grains. 

Calories. 

Grams. 

Calories. 

0.7 

0.7 

50 

0.6 

47 

5.8 

14.3 

790 

11.9 

719 



32 


31 

.6 

1.5 

37 

1.4 

34 

14.2 

41.3 

1,657 

35.7 

1,513 

5.2 

18.6 

179 

18.0 

156 

.6 

1.3 

28 

1.3 

24 

2.9 

4.3 

68 

4.2 

61 

1.5 

3.8 

112 

3.7 

104 

4.2 

6.3 

226 

6.4 

‘205 

5.7 

31.5 

1,037 

26.8 

944 

1.6 

4.3 

267 

3.7 

248 

3.7 

8.7 

434 

7.2 

395 

.3 

.2 

14 

.2 

12 



103 


101 

. 1 

'•1 

2 

.1 

2 

25.8 

79.1 

2,469 

70.6 

2,252 

1.4 

4.8 

46 

4.7 

40 

.3 

.6 

9 

.6 

8 

1.4 

2.6 

50 

2.5 

45 

1.2 

.7 

111 

. 7 

103 

4.6 

8.4 

287 

7.1 

261 

4.3 

25.8 

826 

21.9 

752 

1.7 

2.7 

194 

2.3 

180 

3.9 

6.7 

270 

5.6 

246 

1.5 

.9 

69 

.8 

61 



83 

. 

81 






20.3 

53.2 

1,945 

46.2 

1,777 

20.3 

57.9 

2,024 

50.8 

1,347 


« See footnote r to Table 1. 6 Orders for half the usual amount. 


The above dietary is especially noteworthy because of the unusually 
small amount of nutrients and energy eaten daily, and also because of 
the low cost. On an average for the three periods the ration cost but 
‘JO. 1 cents per day, and furnished 50.8 grams of digestible protein and 
1,847 calories of available energy, pnly 55 and 68.5 per cent, respec- 























































































48 


tively, of the amounts called for l>v the commonly accepted standard 
for men of sedentary occupation. 

Animal foods furnished about ‘24 per cent of the total protein and 11 
|H*r cent of the total energy, the lowest ratio of animal to vegetable 
nutrients noted in the entire investigation. Practically no combina¬ 
tion meals were used; meats furnished only about 75 per cent, and 
dairy products only about 33 per cent, of the quantity of protein and 
energy derived from foods of this kind in the average for all ten sub¬ 
jects. From this it is evident that the consumption of the common 
animal foods was very small. On the other hand, the vegetable and 
cereal foods were very liberally used; for example, vegetables fur¬ 
nished 16 per cent of the total protein and 25 per cent of the total 
energy, or about three and one-half times the average percentage for 
all the subjects; breads nearly 50 per cent, and cereals 80 per cent 
more than the average percentage amount noted in these studies. 
From the point of view of economy of purchase no criticism need 
be made of this dietary, as the choice of dishes was such that little 
more could have been bought for the same money. However, from 
a consideration of the records in the subject’s daybook, selected at 
random, the diet would appear to be far from what is ordinarily con¬ 
sidered normal, palatable, or satisfactory. 


Snwjtb mamx, Subject K. 

December 15. 

Break fast: cents. 

Baked lx‘ans. 4 

Graham crusts (alxuit equal to 2 slices of bread). 1 

Raked potatoes. 2 

Total. 7 

Lunch: 

Cracked wheat and small pitcher of milk (4 ounces). 5 

Supper: 

Two Graham crusts (about equal to 4 slices of bread). 2 

Cup of hot water. 0 

Total. 7 

Total cost for the day. 14 


Febkcakv 14. 


Break fast: 

Steak. 10 

Graham bread (2 slices). 2 

Oatmeal (with sujrar, but no milk). 3 

Hot water. 0 

Total. 15 
























49 


Lunch. cents. 

Cracked wheat (with sugar, but no milk). 3 

Baked potatoes (2 potatoes). 2 

Graham crusts (see above). 1 

Total. 6 

Supper: 

Two Graham crusts (see above). 2 

Pat of butter (about 12 grams). 1 

Fruit cake (1 small square). 1 

Cup of hot water. 0 

Total. 4 

Total cost for the day. 25 

May 24. 

Breakfast: 

Oatmeal (sugar, but no milk). 3 

Baked potatoes (2 potatoes). 2 

Graham crusts. 1 

Cup of hot water. 0 

Total. (j 

Lunch: 

Boiled hominy (sugar, but no milk). 3 

Two Graham crusts. 2 

Baked potatoes (same as above). 2 

Cup of hot water. 0 

Total. 7 

Supper: 

Boiled potatoes (2 potatoes). 2 

Bread (4 slices of white bread). 2 

Saucer of prepared cereal. 3 

Cup of hot water. 0 

Total. 7 


Total cost for the dav 


20 


At the end of the investigation Subject K had gained 8.4 pounds 
and showed a corresponding increase in anthropometric measure¬ 
ments. Judged by the results of an examination, there was no change 
in his general health or physical condition. He passed his final exam¬ 
inations with a clean record of A\s, which indicates a scholarship far 
above that of the average student. 

It appears, then, that this subject, the best developed and most 
robust looking of all the men studied, judging by the data recorded, 
lived on the lowest diet (50.8 grams of digestible protein and 1,847 
calories of available energy per day on an average) and performed a 
highly creditable year’s work without signs of physical deterioration. 

The amounts of protein and energy supplied by the diet of this sub¬ 
ject are very small. The low protein would be understandable if the 













































supply of energy was correspondingly large. The value for energy 
is, however, so low that it seems not unlikely that owing to an over¬ 
sight or misunderstanding some articles were omitted in recording the 
daily diet. 

in experiments with the respiration calorimeter made by Atwater 
and his associates, it has been found that subject* who were performing’ 
almost no external muscular work expended as much energy perdav as 
Subject K received from his diet on an average, and when their mus¬ 
cular activity was increased their output of energy was correspond¬ 
ingly larger. In other words, they required as much energy for the 
simple processes of living as was supplied by the recorded diet of this 
subject, who had considerable muscular exercise in connection with his 
usual daily occupations. It is difficult to believe, in the light of the law 
of the conservation of energy, that he could have subsisted on such a 
diet without some drain on his body, and certainly it can not be sup¬ 
posed that he could continue to draw upon his body throughout the 
college year without some effect upon it. 


DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 

METHOD OF COMPUTING THE DIETARIES. 

The practical impossibility of weighing and sampling all the cooked 
food on its way to the subjects, under conditions existing at Randall 
Hall, led to a method of making dietary studies different from that 
generally followed. As stated earlier (p. 5), records were kept of the 
number and kind of the portions of food served to each subject. The 
amount of food in each portion was estimated by weighing sample 
portions and finding an average value from these weighings, which 
was used to calculate the weight of the portions actually served to the 
men. This may be called the method of average weights, inasmuch as 
it rests upon the assumption that the weights of successive portions 
of any given cooked food, on account of accidental variations, swing 
around an ideal value, which can be determined by weighing a sufficient 
number of the portions and averaging the figures so obtained. That 
this is the case within certain limits of error was shown bv the agree- 
ment between weighings of consecutive portions of anv given article 
of food. This is nothing more than is to be expected where the same 
sized dishes and serving spoons are used day after day for serving the 
same foods For example, to obtain the average weight of an order 
of white bread, nine portions were weighed as they came from the 
serving room on different days, with the following results: (5b, 56, 63, 
60, 64, 70, 62, 63, and 6(5 grams, the average being 64.3 grams. While 
the difference between the extremes is appreciable, the average varia¬ 
tion from this average is only 3 grams, or 4.7 per cent. 


51 


The average variation of the successive weights from the average 
of all t he weights, when reduced to a percentage basis, as in the above 
sample, may be called “percentage variation.” The figure expressing 
the percentage variation is useful to indicate the degree of uniformity 
in the successive weights of the same article of food and furnishes an 
approximate measure of the accuracy of the method of averages which 
lies at the bottom of the whole investigation. The precise meaning of 
the percentage variation figure is clear from the following considera¬ 
tions: Let us suppose that the average weight of all the orders of bread 
eaten by a certain student during three weeks, determined by the actual 
weighing of each order, is found to be 100 grams. Suppose, also, that 
the average variation of the single orders from 100 grams is 4.7 
grams; then the percentage variation is 4.7. This working average, as 
it may be termed, determined by a comparatively small number of 
observations, may or may not be 100 grams, the true average. For 
example, it may happen that the weights of the orders that we select 
for weighing are all above the true average or all below, instead of 
some above and some below. In the lirst instance the working aver¬ 
age would be 104.7grams, on the assumption that the specimen orders 
were dished out with the same uniformity that obtained when the true 
average was determined. In other words, the maximum error that 
the method is likely to introduce is 4.7 per cent of the total weight of 
the bread consumed. 

Consider now the uniformity shown by other articles of food. For 
the important class of breadstuff's the percentage variation was found 
to be 7.0, for cereals it was 0.0, and for dairy products 0.0. Meats 
showed the greatest irregularities, the percentage variation being 
13.5. Averaging the percentage variations of all the important arti¬ 
cles gives 8.0—that is to say, if the same number of orders of all the 
various dishes were consumed, and we estimate the total weights by 
multiplying the average weight of each order by the number of orders 
eaten, the greatest error that lack of uniformity in the individual 
weights could reasonably he expected to introduce would be about 9 
per cent of the total weight sought. 

It does not follow, however, that the largest error to he expected 
in the final figures for protein and energy is 9 per cent, for all the 
articles of food are not of equal importance in the result. Evidently, 
if a subject eats hut one or two orders of meat during a period, the 
addition to his average daily ration is small, and the error is slight 
if the item is left out altogether, hence it suffices to determine the 
nutrients and weight of the meat approximately. Similarly, in a ration 
consisting of meat and fruit in equal weights, it is unnecessary to deter¬ 
mine either the weight of the fruit or its proportion of nutrients with 
the same accuracy as in the case of meat, since the low value of the 
fruit in bu ms of protein and energy makes its effect on the total value 


52 


of tin* nit ion slight. It is clour, then, that the exactitude with which 
we should know the weights of the various servings or jxirtioiiH of the 
different foods defends lx>th upon the chemical composition of the food 
and ujhui the nmultcrof orders oaten. Since we know the amounts of 
protein and energy furnished by the various classes of food, viz. soups, 
dairy products, cereals, breads, vegetables, meats, etc., and the |x*r- 
centage variation applying to each class, it is quite possible to com¬ 
pute, approximately at least, the effect produced bv these variations 
in the final figures expressing the energy and protein in the average 
ration. The following table shows the amounts of nutrients furnished 
by the different classes of food during the whole study, the percentage 
variations, and the effects on the totals: 

Table 13 .—Jteoportion of protein and energy in average daily ration per man (for the 
entire iavertigation) furnished hy variant c hisses of food and jrrolxible maximum error 
introduced lay mriation in the size of consecutive orders of the mriotts dishes. 


Classes of food. 

Average 
variation 
in weights 
of individ¬ 
ual por¬ 
tions. 

Digestible 

protein 

furnished. 

Probable 
maximum 
t-rror in 
protein. 

Available 
energy fur¬ 
nished. 

Probable 
maximum 
error in 

energy. 

Soon. 

Per cent. 
7.4 

Grams. 

1.8 

Grams. 

0.10 

CWorie*. 

21.2 

('alt tries. 

1.6 

Hash, fish, meats. 

18.6 

13.1 

1.77 

151.4 

20. 4 

Dairv product!*. 

6.6 

9.9 

.66 

370.8 

24.5 

Breakfast cereals. 

6.6 

4. 4 

.29 

151.2 

10.0 

Breads and crackers. 

7.6 

21.6 

1.64 

780. 2 

59.2 

Desserts. 

7.4 

3.2 

.24 

212.9 

15.7 

Vegetables. 

9 2 

4.2 

.39 

193.9 

17.8 

Fruits. 

11.8 

.7 

.08 

.59.5 

7.0 

Beverages. 

7.0 

1.4 

. 10 

44.2 

3.1 

Combination meals. 

8.0 

16.2 

1.22 

459.0 

36.7 

Sugars. 

5.0 

222.1 

11.1 


7.2 

3.1 

.22 

53.7 

3.9 

. 

Total ..... 


78.1 

6.70 

2,720.1 

211.0 



Multiplying tin* total probable maximum error in protein, 6.70 
grams, by loo. and dividing by the total digestible protein furnished, 
7s. 1 grams, gives 8.6 per cent as the average variation for digestible 
protein; a similar computation gives 7.8 per cent as the average vari¬ 
ation for available energy; and the average of both is 8.2 per cent. 
This figure is believed to be the largest error that abnormal variations 
in the size of orders is likelv to introduce into the dietaries. In the 
opinion of the writer, the actual error lies considerably below this, 
lw*ing perhaps 3 or 4 per cent. A carefully conducted dietary study 
where the method of weighing, sampling, and analyzing all food on 
hand at the beginning, received during, and remaining at the end of 
the period of examination is employed would probably yield results 
within about 1 per cent of the actual amount of nitrogen and energy 
in the food. The error inherent in the analytical determination of 
nitrogen and heat of combustion is so small that it may be neglected; 
but when one computes protein** from the total nitrogen by using 
factors, another and sometimes considerable error mav be introduced. 




































53 


1*'cause of uncertainty regarding the nitrogen factor for protein." 
The use of *'coefficients of digestibility” moreover is attended with 
uncertainty for, while they yield reasonably accurate results in the 
average of a considerable number of studies, the actual error in some 
individual results has been found to be as high as 5 per cent in one 
or more nutrients. 6 The method of average weights which it was 
necessary to employ appears, therefore, to give results that are some¬ 
what less accurate than the usual methods, but it is believed that the 
results are nevertheless sufficients exact to be trustworthy and of 
practical value. 

Another source of error in dietary work lies in the failure to obtain 
representative samples for analysis. In this investigation the unusu¬ 
ally large variety of foods eaten by the various men made it practi¬ 
cal!}' impossible to sample and analyze every article; on the other 
hand, it should be pointed out that many of the materials were con¬ 
sumed to such a limited extent that, as far as the effect on the results 
is concerned, they might be estimated with ample accuracy from 
available data, or, indeed, neglected altogether without materially 
changing the final results. With a knowledge of the number of orders 
of each food eaten during the periods of study, it was possible to judge 
whether any given article was of sufficient importance to demand 
analysis. Table 1, page 6, gives the percentage of protein and energy 
per gram of the foods used during the dietary studies, including those 
analyzed in connection with these studies and those for which such 
figures were estimated from previous analyses. There is no way of 
learning precisely how nearly the figures obtained by our method of 
sampling, analysis, and estimation represent the true values of protein 
and energy for the amount of food involved. The writer is of the 
opinion that, although the sampling, etc., in this case may not have 
been as accurate as in the ordinarv dietary studv, nevertheless the 
error is no greater than that involved in the use of the average weights 
before discussed. 

From the above consideration it seems reasonable to conclude that 
the dietaries express the daily rations of the subjects to within 3 to 4 
per cent of both the protein and the energy involved. 


RANDALL HALL DIETARIES COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHER 

STUDENTS. 

In the discussion of the results of the individual dietaries, they nave 
been compared with each other and with the commonly accepted stand¬ 
ard for a man of sedentary occupation, a basis of comparison selected 
because it was believed that none of the subjects were occupied in such 


«See Atwater and Bryant, Connecticut Storrs Station Rpt 1899, p. 76. 
b Ibid., p. 86. 



54 


a way that they jM»rformod anv considerable amount of muscular work 
other than that necessitated by walking to and from recitations, meals, 
etc. 

It is interesting to compare tlie results ol)tained with these students 
with those of studies made at other American colleges and universi¬ 
ties and with the results of studies in professional mens families and 
other families. Such a comparison is made in the following table: 

Tahijc 14.— -Summon/ of rrxitil* of dietary xtudir* irilh xtudmt* and dirtnry nt<nulor*ls. 

[Quantities |*er man per day.] 


Student* at Randall Hall: 

Subject A. 

Subject B. 

Sub, ect C. 

Subject I). 

Sub ect E. 

Sub, ect F. 

Subject G. 

Sub, ect H.. 

Sub, ect I. 

Subject K.. 


Average of all. 

Average of all except Subject K 


Student* at college commons, Wesleyan University: 

Subject No. 1. 

Sub, ect No. 2. 

Subject No. 3. 


Average 


Student boarding himself, Wesleyan University 
Student at University of California. 


College boarding clubs: 

Men— 

At Wesleyan University, average 2 studies.., 
At University of Tennessee, average 5studies. 
At University of Missouri,average 2 studies.. 

At Maine State College, average 5 studies_ 

At Western Reserve University. 


Average 15 studies 


Men and women— 

At Storrs (Conn.) Agricultural School 


Women ■ 

At Wesleyan University. 

At North Dakota Agricultural College 

At lake Erie College. 

At Chicago University. 

At Western Reserve University. 


Average 


Average of 14 professional men’s families. 

Average of 14 mechanics’ families. 

Average of 10 fanner* families. 

Men at rest in respiration calorimeter .... 


DIETARY STANDARDS (ATWATER). 

Man with moderately active muscular work. 
Man with light to moderate muscular work . 

Man with MeOtUT occupation. . 

Man with very little physical exercise. 


Cost 

i>er 

day. 


In total food. 


Protein. 


Urnt*. 

32.3 

36.1 

41.7 

42.7 

43.3 

34.3 

62.4 

37.7 

28.7 

20.1 


Gnun*. 

85 

92 

97 

67 
105 

*6 

120 

82 

71 

68 


37.9 

39.9 


32.1 
32.1 
32. 1 


32.1 


31.6 

26.0 


17.0 


28.0 

25.6 


13.0 

18.0 

25.0 

25.0 


28.0 

19.0 


Energy. 


Digest¬ 

ible 

protein. 


t Yilorir*. 
3,108 
8,033 
3,196 
2,789 
2,969 
3,061 
3,656 
3,062 
2,739 
2,024 


86 

89 


2,964 
3,068 


139 

91 

101 


111 


146 

94 


98 

93 

96 

121 

140 


110 


104 


84 

64 

68 

108 

103 


85 


104 

103 

97 

109 


125 

112 

100 

90 


Gram*. 

76 
84 
88 
61 
97 

77 
110 

73 

63 

51 


78 

81 


126 

82 

95 


101 


133 

87 


90 

86 

88 

112 

128 


101 


96 


78 

59 

62 

99 

94 


79 


96 

95 

89 

103 


116 

103 

92 

83 


Avail¬ 

able 

energy. 

(nlories. 
2,859 
2,795 
2,947 
2, .566 
2,712 
2.824 
3,336 
2,809 
2,806 
1,847 


2,720 
2,817 


4,188 
2.924 
2,992 


3,368 

3.692 
2,581 


3,387 
3,437 
3,450 
4,128 
3,633 


3,607 


3,564 


2,581 
2,579 
2,610 
2,866 
2,970 


2,711 

3, ’221 
3.355 
8, 113 
2,418 


3. 400 
3,050 
2. 700 
2.450 


a Quantities per woman per day. The corresponding amounts per man |»er day would be one-fourth 
greater,on the assumption that a woman eats 0.8 as much as a man under like conditions. 





















































































































55 


These comparisons afford an interesting illustration of the value of 
a knowledge of the relation between the cost and the actual nutritive 
value of food. This may be especially emphasized by a comparison 
of the average of the results for the Harvard students with those for 
the student at Wesleyan boarding himself. The latter had a clear 
idea of the nutritive value of different food materials and made his 
purchases accordingly. The cost of his diet was only about five-sixths 
of the average for the Harvard students, yet he obtained about seven- 
tenths more protein and a third more energy than they. 

Some part of the larger average cost of the diet of the Harvard stu¬ 
dents is, of course, due to the operating expenses of the boarding club, 
which the Wesleyan student did not have to meet. The latter bought 
mostly food ready to eat and prepared his own meals. But even 
assuming that the difference was wholly due to such causes, the Wes¬ 
leyan student could have obtained a diet equivalent in nutritive value 
to that of the average for the Harvard students for about 25 cents 
per day. 

A comparison with other results given in the table is also interest¬ 
ing. In the studies with the three students boarding at the Wesleyan 
commons the diet ranged from 82 to 12fi grams of digestible protein, 
and from 2,924 to 4,188 calories of energy, the average being 101 
grams and 3,368 calories, which was appreciably larger than the 
average consumption for the Harvard students. This was true also 
in the case of the average of the results of 15 studies made with col- 
lege boarding clubs in different parts of the country. 

The above summary of the results of the studies at Randall Hall 
very plainly shows the wide difference in cost and nutritive value of 
the diet selected by the different students. The largest sum per man 
per day was that for Student G—namely, 62.7 cents—and the diet also 
supplied the largest amount of protein and energy; the smallest cost 
was that for Student K, and likewise the quantity of protein and energy 
in the diet was smaller than in that of any of the other subjects. 
On the other hand, the latter student, fora little less than one-third 
the cost, obtained very nearly one-half as much protein and consider¬ 
ably more than half as much energy as the former. 

Subject F spent 2 cents per day more than Subject A for a diet 
practically the same in nutritive value. Subject A spent 5 cents per 
day less than subject II for a diet furnishing more protein and energy 
than that of the latter. Subject E spent only 0.4 cent more than 
Subj ect D, yet he obtained more energy and very much more protein 
in his diet than the latter: in fact Subject D spent more than twice as 
much as Subject K, who spent the least of all for food, yet he obtained 
only a little over a sixth more protein and a third more energy. It is 
evident from such comparisons that some of the students could have 
obtained considerably more actual nourishment than they did for the 


same ex|>cnditupe, or they could have had a diet equally as nutritious 

jis tin* one they had for a smaller cost. 

* 

FOOD SUPPLY IN RELATION TO BODY WEIGHT. 

In considering the nutrients supplied by a given ration and the 
adequacy of the diet, as compared with the accepted standard, it is 
interesting to make comparisons on the basis of nutrients supplied per 
kilogram of body weight that is, in relation to the size of the subjects, 
since it seems obvious that a very small man would not have the same 

m/ 

food requirements as a large one. It has been estimated that on an 
average the American man weighs not far from 150 pounds (08 kilo¬ 
grams). The commonly accepted dietary standard for an av erage man 
at sedentary employment (02 grams digestible protein and 2.7(H) calo¬ 
ries of available energy) would, therefore, provide 1.4 grams protein 
and 40 calories of energy per kilogram body weight. The table below 
shows the amounts of digestible protein and available energy fur¬ 
nished per kilogram body weight by the dietaries reported in this 
bulletin and compares these values with the standard selected: 

Table 15 .—Daily income of digestible protein ond available energy ]>er kilogram l>ody 

weight. 




Average 

weight. 

Amount* per day. 

Amount* per kilo¬ 
gram body weight. 



Protein. 

Energy. 

Protein. 

Energy. 

Hub 
Sub 
Sub 
Sul), 
Sub, 
Sub, 
Sub 
Sub 
Sub 
Sub] 
A vc 
A vp 

ect A. 

Kilograms. 
50.2 

Grams. 

76.2 

(la lories. 
2,859 
2,795 
2,947 
2,566 
2,712 
2,824 
3,336 
2,809 
2,506 
1,847 
2,720 
2,817 
2,700 

Grams. 

1.5 

(\ilorirs. 

57 

ect B. 

60. 7 

83.9 

1.4 

46 

ret C. 

65.2 

87.7 

1.3 

45 

ect D. 

54.5 

61.5 

1.1 

47 

ect E . 

62.6 

97.1 

1.6 

43 

ect F. 

54.9 

77.2 

1.4 

51 

ect G. 

66. 4 

110.4 

1.7 

50 

ect H. 

59.3 

73.0 

1.2 

47 

ect I *». 

53. H 

68.5 

1.2 

47 

ect K. 

70.4 

50.8 

.7 

21 

rage of till. 

59.8 

78.1 

1.3 

45 

ram* of all pxppnt fill hi pot K. 

58.6 

81.2 

1.4 

48 

M»n with sinlentarv nceunation___ 

68.0 

92.0 

1.4 

40 





'•This student's ration wax much larger in the second and third periods than in the first. If the 
average of the last two periods be taken as nearer normal, the ineome would be, per kilogram, 
protein 1.4 grams, energy 53 calories. 


It will be seen that considering the average results for all the stu¬ 
dents the food furnished 1.3 grams digestible protein and 45 calories 
of available energy per kilogram body weight, or 7 per cent less pro¬ 
tein and 12 per cent more energy than is called for by the standard 
selected for comparison. If the results obtained with Subject K, 
which there is some reason for considering exceptional, are omitted, 
the average amounts would be 1.4 grams digestible protein and 48 
calories available energy, or as much protein and 20 per cent more 
energy than the standard calls for. 

Considering the individual studies it will be noted that, with the 

































57 


exception of Subject K, the amount of energy was in all cases greater 
than the standard, while that of protein equaled or exceeded it in five 
cases. Judging the results of the studies in accordance with this 
method of comparison, the amounts of protein and energy obtained 
were on an average sufficient to maintain the subjects in equilibrium 
with their environment. 


THE STRENGTH TESTS. 

At the beginning and end of each period of examination the sub¬ 
jects reported for strength tests, as has been noted. The system was 
that devised by Dr. I). A. Sargent and now used in many colleges. 
The individual taking the test is measured with a tape line and calipers. 
He is then made to exert his strength upon a series of spring dynamom¬ 
eters, the compression of which measures the strength of the various 
muscles. The results obtained are tabulated and, by comparison with 
a set of average results for men of the same age, the individual devel¬ 
opment may be deduced. 

In the case of the men examined in this investigation the changes 
observed were very small for the most part and are within the limit of 
probable error in the method. A few of the more significant measure¬ 
ments are given in the following table: 

Table 16. — Age* and physical measurement* of subject*. 



Age. 

Height. 

Chest. 

Waist. 

Thigh. 

Weight. 

Strength. 

Subject A: 

Year*. 

Cm. 

Cm. 

Cm. 

Cm. 

Kqm. 

Kqm. 

Beginning. 

31 

157.0 

&4 

69 

46.5 

48.5 

427 

End. 


157.0 

89 

72 

50.5 

51.9 

539 

Gain. 


.0 

5 

3 

4.0 

3.4 

112 

Subject B: 








Beginning. 

20 

161.5 

85 

74 

52.0 

59.8 

698 

End. 


162.0 

89 

73 

54.5 

61.7 

767 

Gain. 


. 5 

4 

- 1 

2.5 

1.9 

69 

Subject C: 








Beginning. 

23 

167.5 

85 

76 

55.5 

65.7 

526 

End.. 


168.5 

88 

7t> 

56.0 

64.8 

809 

Gain. 


1.0 

3 

0 

.5 

- .9 

283 

Subject 1): 








Beginning. 

22 

168.5 

82 

67 

49.5 

54.2 

560 

End. 


168. 5 

84 

69 

49.0 

54.7 

699 

Gain. 


.0 

2 

2 

— .5 

.5 

139 

Subject E: 








Beginning. 

26 

166.5 

90 

75 

51.5 

61.8 

637 

End. 


lt>6. 5 

94 

76 

53.5 

63. 5 

743 

Gain. 


.0 

4 

1 

2.0 

1.7 

106 

Subject F: 








Beginning. 

25 

162.0 

86 

68 

49.5 

54.5 

682 

End. 


163.5 

88 

71 

.50.0 

55.3 

900 

Gain. 


1.5 

2 

3 

.5 

.8 

218 

Subject G: 








Beginning. 

22 

174.0 

88 

T2 

53. 0 

65.0 

618 

End. r . 


174.5 

90 

74 

55.5 

67. 8 

824 

Gain. 


.5 

2 

2 

2.6 

2.8 

206 











































































































































58 


Table lti.— Age* utul physical mcatniremcuU of subjects —Continued. 



Age. 

Height. 

Cheat. 

Waist 

Thigh. 

Weight. 

strength. 

ibieet H: 

Beginning. 

Year*. 

Cm. 

Cm. 

Ob. 

Ck. 

Ki/m. 

A fjm. 

27 

179.0 

84 

70 

47.5 

58.2 

607 

End. 


181.0 

88 

70 

40. 5 

60.4 

735 

Gain. 


2.0 

4 

0 

2.0 

2.2 

128 

ibieet I: 








Beginning. 

16 

163.0 

84 

67 

45.5 

50.0 

740 

End. 

. 

164.0 

88 

74 

49.5 

57.6 

890 

Gain. 


1.0 

4 

7 

4.0 

7.0 

l.'o 

bjeet K: 

Beginning. 








22 

170.0 

08 

77 

54.5 

68.5 

682 

End. 


170.0 

08 

82 

58.1 

72.3 

793 

Gain. 


.0 

0 

6 

3.6 

3.8 

ill 

Avenge. 

23.4 

167.0 

87.0 

71.5 

50.5 

58.6 

618 

Avenge gain. 


.6 

2.7 

2.2 

* 2.1 

2.4 

152 

Per cent of average gain. . 


.4 

3.1 

3.1 

4.2 

4.1 

24.6 


The gain in weight, averaging about 4 per cent, is the most signifi¬ 
cant point brought out by the table. Every subject but one (Subject 
C) showed a slight, but tolerably uniform, gain in weight throughout 
the year. As was to be expected, all the other measurements also 
increased more or less. In the case of the older of the men, i. e., 
those who had attained their full physical development, the gain in 
weight indicated that their diet was a little more than sufficient to 
maintain them in equilibrium with their environment. With the 
younger men it is a question whether their gain was more or less than 
normal growth demands; or, in other words, whether their diet was 
sufficient to maintain them in equilibrium with their daily work and 
also to supply the needs of bodies still growing and developing. It is 
impossible to answer this question from the data of this study, but it 
is clear that in every case but one (Subject C) the amount of nutritive 
material obtained was at least not too small to allow of a slight 
increase in the body weight. 

The element of skill in applying one’s power to the dynamometers 
influences results to an unknown extent, and the same individual after 
several successive trials often increases his previous records by several 
hundred points. The increase of about 25 per cent in the strength, as 
shown by the figures, can hardly be regarded as a reliable indication 
of actual gain in muscular strength, since it seems too small to lie out¬ 
side the improvement arising from a mere repetition of trials. 

1 la* strength records of the subjects are rather lower than the 
general average of such tests with students at Harvard. The physical 
measurements recorded also show that the men included in the inves¬ 
tigation were below the average. For example, as regards height, 
these men, on the average, would stand about twenty-fourth if we 
took 100 students at random and arranged them in a row, beginning 
with the smallest and ending with the tallest. As regards weight, 
they, as an average, would stand at the thirty-fourth place, beginning 














































































59 


with the lightest; in girth of chest, they would take forty-eighth 
place; in girth of waist, forty-third place, and in girth of thigh, forty- 
sixth place. Taking all measurements into account, they would stand 
at about the fortieth place. 


GENERAL PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE SUBJECTS. 


At the time of the strength tests the men were given a medical 
examination by Dr. E. A. Darling somewhat resembling in character 
that required of applicants for life insurance. It was thought that 
such examinations, made by a physician, would bring to light any 
changes that would occur in the general health of the men—changes 
which the strength tests of course fail to indicate. 

The general condition of the men as a whole at the beginning of the 
study was regarded as rather below par. Only two (Subjects I and K) 
of the ten were classed as well developed and nourished, six (B, C, E, 
F, G, and II) were in fair condition, and two (A and I)) were poorly 
developed and nourished. None was actually in poor health, though 
one man had recently recovered from typhoid fever. During the 
period of study several of the men had slight illnesses, such as indi¬ 
gestion, etc., but nothing which affected their general condition to any 
great extent. At the time of the last examination most of the men 

CJ 

declared that they felt better than at the first. Physical examination, 
however, showed no noticeable change except a slight increase of fat 
in several instances. There seemed certainly no deterioration. 

Data recorded by the subjects themselves in regard to daily habits 
and occupations are summarized in the following table: 


Table 17.— Approximate daily programme of the different subjects. 




Sleep. 



Exercise. 


Subject. 

Period 

1. 

Period 

2. 

Period 

3. 

Period 1. 

Period 2. 

Period 3. 


Hours. 

Hours. 

Hours. 


Gymnasium ihour, 
or walking 1 to 2 
hours, daily. 

Gymnasium 1 hour, 
"or walking 1 to 2 
hours, or bicycle 
1 to 1 hour, daily. 

A. 

71 

8| 

7} 

Gymnasium 1 hour, 
or walking 1 to 2 
hours, daily. 

H. 

71 

7j 

71 

Walking 1 hour 15 
days!, football (5 
days). 

Walking 1 tol hour, 

9 days. 

Baseball 1 to 2 
hours, 10 days. 

C. 

7 

7 

7 

Walking 3 hours 
(Sundays only). 

Walking 2 hours 
(Sundays only). 

Bicycle 1 hour, 11 

days. 

D. 

61 

71 

7 

Gymnasium 1 to 1 
hour, 9 davs. 

None. 

None. 

E. 

7! 

7j 

8 

Walking 21 to 3 
miles, dailv. 

Walking 21 to 3 
miles, daily. 

Walking 21 to 3 
miles, daily. 

F. 

81 

8 

8 

Walking or gymna¬ 
sium 1 to 1 hour, 
daily. 

Walking or gymna¬ 
sium 1 to 1 hour, 
daily. 

Walking or hand¬ 
ball i to 11 hours, 
7 days. 

G. 

6i 

61 

61 

Walking 1 to 2 
hours, 2 days; 
skating 1 hour, 

1 day. 

None. 

None. 

H. 

8 

71 

71 

Walking or bicycle 

1 to 1 hour, 7 days. 

Walking or gymna¬ 
sium 1 hour, 10 
davs. 

Bicycle 1 to 2 hours, 
fi days. 

I. 

8i 

81 

81 

Walking I hours, 1 
day. 

Walking 1 to lliour, 

2 days. 

Walking 1 hour, 1 
day; bicycle 6 
hours, 1 day. 

K. 

7 

61 

61 

None. 

Walking 1 hour, 1 
day. 

None. 




































T A HI. It 17. — A /ffirori unite' daily / ftnxjrammr of the differ fnt tuhjrct* — (Vintinuwl. 


Subject. 

College work—lecture*, 
leading, etc. 


Outside work. 


Period 

L 

Period Period 

2. 3. 

Period 1. 

I*erl»*i 2. 

iVriod 8. 


Ilnur*. 

Ilnur*. Ilnur*. 



None. 

A. 

10 

8 9 

None. 

None. 

H. 


71 a 

Barber's shop 8 
hour*, 3 days. 

Barber 1 * shop. 8 
hours, 1 dav; 
waiting on table 
at Randall 1 to 2 
hours, 9 day*. 

None. 

ff Iff 

C. 

10| 

121 11 

Waiting on table at 
Kaudall Hall 1 to 

3 hours, dailv. 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 1 to 

8 hours, daily. 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 1 to 
8 hours, 17 da\ - 

I>. 

121 

ml J21 

None. 

None. 

None. 

K 

91 

m 

4 

71 6| 

7| 7 

None. 

None. 

None. 

K. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

(i 

9 

91 91 

7 71 

None. 

None. 

None. 

H. 

at 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall j to 
1| hours. 10 da vs. 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 1 to 
11 hours, 13 da vs. 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 1 to 
1 j hours, 12 days. 

I. 

71 

8 8) 

Clerical work 3 to 5 
hours, y dftl - 

Clerical work 11 to 

4 hours, ti day v 

Clerical work 1 to 21 
hours. 4 uh\ s. 
Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 21 to 
41 hours, daily. 

K. 

HI 

10 101 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 11 
toShoun, 16 days. 

Waiting on table at 
Randall Hall 1 to 

4 hours, 17 days. 


The data recorded show that all the men spent a fair amount and 
some an unusually large proportion of time on their college work. 
All spent very little time, on the average, in exercise beyond that nec¬ 
essary for walking to and from lectures and meals, and, as a rule, 
indulged only in the lighter forms, such as walking and gymnasium 
work, with occasionally bicycling, baseball, and handball. The aver¬ 
age time spent in sleep was somewhat less than is usual among college 
men. 

Briefly, then, according to Doctor Darling's report, it may l>e said 
that (1) no appreciable change was observed in the general condi¬ 
tion of the men during the period of observation; ( k 2) the men spent 
rather less time than the average in sleep and exercise, but rather 
more than the average in the college work; and (3) the dietary was 
apparently sufficient to maintain the nutritive'standard to which they 
were accustomed. 


MENTAL WORK OF THE SUBJECTS. 

A year's work for a man in regular standing at Harvard University 
consists of seldom less than four or more than six whole (i. e., lasting 
throughout the year) courses of study. The highest grade of marks 
given is “A." which indicates exceptionally good work. The grade 
“B" indicates work above the average, “C" is given for average 
work, and the grade “ D " indicates that the student has “passed,” 
but without credit. 

As shown in the preceding table, five of the men engaged in no sys¬ 
tematic mental work aside from that involved in their regular college 
courses. In these instances the grades or marks received by the men 
in their courses of study are a tolerably accurate measure of their 































61 


mental work. In the case of the men who did outside work the grades 
attained by them in their college courses are, of course, only an approxi¬ 
mate indication of the amount of mental work. The following table 
shows the number of courses taken and the average grades attained 
by each subject for the year: 

Table IS.— Scholarship of the subjects as shown by the number of courses of study taken 

and the average grades attained throughout the year. 


Subject. 

Kind of work. 

Number 

of 

courses. 

Average 

grade. 

Remarks. 

A. 

B. 

Mathematics. 

4 

A 

No outside w’ork. First year student in 
graduate school. 

History and lan¬ 
guages. 

5 

(“) 

Worked in barber shop and was waiter at 
Randall Hall. Freshman in the college. 

C. 

General scientific. 

6 

(«) 

Served as a waiter at Randall Hall and 
did clerical work. Was a sophomore in 
the college. 

D. 

Mathematics and 
physics. 

4 

B 

No outside work. Sophomore in the col¬ 
lege. 


Electrical engi¬ 
neering. 

7 

B 

No outside work. Senior in the Lawrence 
Scientific School. 

F . 

Greek, Latin, and 
classical philol¬ 
ogy. 

4 

A 

No outside work. Second year student in 
graduate school. 

G. 

General classic... 

5 

<S> 

No outside work. Senior in college. 

H . 

History, philos¬ 
ophy, econom¬ 
ics, etc. 

4 

Served as waiter at Randall Hall. Senior 
in the college. 

[ . 

General classic... 

6 

B 

Did clerical work. Freshman in college. 

K . 

Greek. 

41 

A 

Served as waiter at Randall Hall. Senior 
in the college. 





n Between B and C. 


A glance at the table shows that on the whole the work of these men 
in their college courses was of a very high grade; in fact, far above 
the average. Moreover, the studies pursued were, with some excep¬ 
tions, of an advanced nature. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

The general trend of the results of these studies is clear. The ten 
young men performing approximately the same duties under the same 
general conditions lived on diets that differed widely in respect to the 
amounts of protein and energy supplied. The differences were notice¬ 
able not only with the different individuals, but also, in some cases, 
with the same individual in different periods. So far as it is possible 
to judge, the men appeared to be in bodily equilibrium on their vari¬ 
ous diets during the different periods; at least they showed no change 
in general physical condition that could be detected by careful med¬ 
ical examination. 

In discussing the results of the investigations, especially with refer 
ence to the adequacy of the diet for daily needs, it has been assumed 
that the occupation of the subjects may be considered sedentary. A 
number of the men took more or less exercise and had some work 
other than that connected with their college duties, yet it seems fair 
to conclude that the daily lives of all the men should be called sedentary 
































I mm *a u se none of thorn apparently had as much exercise a> mechanic* 
anti others enpijjed in various forms of muscular work, who arc 
included in the group covered by the term “ light to moderate mus¬ 
cular work.” For all the subjects together the average daily con¬ 
sumption of digestible protein was 78 grams and tin* available energy 
of the food ‘2,720 calorics, whereas the standard with which comparison 
has been made-namely, that for a man with sedentary occupation 
suirirests 02 trrains digestible protein and 2,Too calories of available 
energy. In other words, as shown by this comparison, the average 
amount of digestible protein of the daily diet was less than the stand¬ 
ard selected calls for, while the amount of available energy was about 


the same. 

It is interesting, however, to consider the amount of digestible pro¬ 
tein and available energy supplied by the food in comparison with the 
weights of the subjects. Assuming that the average American man 
weighs not far from 150 pounds (68 kilograms), the commonly accepted 
dietary standard for the average man at sedentary employment would, 
therefore, provide 1.4 grams protein and 40 calories of energy per 
kilogram l>ody weight. As shown by the average results of all the 
students, the food furnished 1.3 grams digestible protein and 45 calories 
of energy ]>er kilogram bod}’ weight, or 7 per cent less protein and 12 
per cent more energy than is called for by the standard selected for 
comparison. In the case of the individual studies with one exception 
the amount of energy provided was greater than the standard calls for, 
while with tiveof the subjects the amount of protein equaled or exceeded 
the standard and with four it was only a little below it. It will be seen 
that when the comparison is made on the basis of actual weight of the 
subjects the agreement with the dietary standard is closer than on the 
basis of amounts per person per day. 

As has been stated, marked differences were observed in the amounts 
consumed bv the different individuals and by the same individual in 
different periods, yet on the whole the subjects appeared to be in 
equilibrium with their environment. The question naturally arises 
then, what would be a suitable dietary standard for these men, since 
in some cases there appears to have been for a given subject not one 
ration only but several different rations which enabled him to do his 
customary work without apparent change in physical condition? It 
seems reasonably certain that as regards protein the daily requirement 
is not a fixed quantity either for different individuals under similar 
circumstances or for the same individual at all times. So far as any 
given individual is concerned, it is known that the quantity of protein 
may vary within rather wide limits and that the !>ody seems capable of 
adapting itself under certain conditions to diets of markedly different 
character. When such facts are considered the variations in the 
amounts of protein in the diets of the different subjects or with the 
same subject in different periods are not surprising. 


63 


It is quite generally conceded that the dietary standards commonly 
accepted suggest amounts which experience has shown to be ample 
under usual circumstances for nourishing the body, maintaining it in 
harmony with its environment, and keeping up its resistance to any 
unfavorable conditions which may arise. It is recognized that in the 
case of individuals and groups variations from any such standard will 
always be found. The variations from the dietary standard observed 
in the case of these students are interesting, but are, of course, not 
uniform or numerous enough to warrant any modification of the stand¬ 
ard. If average values per person are considered, it will be seen that 
the protein supplied was lower and the energy somewhat higher than 
the quantities called for by the standard, a variation which is in har¬ 
mony with the commonly accepted theory that within limits a defi¬ 
ciency of protein may be compensated by an increase of energy. 
When the comparison is based on amounts per kilogram body weight 
the agreement with the dietary standards is fairly close in the case of 
protein, whereas the energy exceeds the standard. 

As shown by the average results of studies made at a number of 
American colleges and universities, the diet of the group studied at 
Harvard furnished considerably less protein and energy than usual. 
The results reported in the present investigation are obviously too few 
for sweeping deductions, and probably no one would suggest that the 
diet of the average student is too large, because the students here 
studied lived on a diet furnishing smaller amounts of protein and 
energy. Nature is very accommodating, and there is apparently 
always an effort to bring the body into harmony with its environment 
in respect to food and other conditions. In the case of these students 
and others studied elsewhere there is no means of knowing the effect 
of the diet on their future health and well-being, or on their subse¬ 
quent resistance to disease, or other conditions which would make 
unusual demands on their physical vigor. Such questions must be 
taken into account before final conclusions can be reached. 


O 
























Ifc Mr *07 















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 014 424 477 1 


0 






















